OM-D as PR palette cleanser.

CharlesB58 said:

Yep, that approximately 1% of total digital camera sales made up by FF is really a huge slice of the pie Olympus is missing out on...

Click to expand...

What percentage of compact cameras had APS-C sensors a year ago? Now there are new ones every few months and they're selling exceptionally well. I own a Samsung NX and love it.

The move to larger sensors has been on for a while. The 24x36 sensor size is still just prohibitively expensive to most. But Canon has been very clear about how unexpected the success of the 5DII was and how it's driving their current push for more 24x36 options.

The first camera company that makes a compact 24x36 system at a price point that's perceived as affordable will see huge sales.

It's not for any arbitrary reason, though. It's because that's a very sweet spot in imager size. It's big enough to not be easily hampered by diffraction, but still small enough to permit the design of relatively compact and fast optics.

Above 16 megapixels 4/3 starts looking less appealing unless you have fast optics and can use them at f/2.8 or wider. At 36 megapixels a 24x36 sensor is still able to deal with f/5.6 or so before diffraction-limiting starts to be an issue. And of course it spreads the image out over a larger slice of the lens requiring less demanding optics, which is why almost all large format lenses look amazing. They aren't having to work as hard.

As megapixel counts increase the larger sensors are going to start being more of a necessity than a luxury. It would be nice to have a new generation of Zuiko optics designed for "full frame" photography. That's the promise of a true "Digital OM" system.

John Mason said:

won't be ff

and development of this has been from before the scandal broke - obviously

Click to expand...

Of course. Because Olympus has been building compact 4/3 cameras for years now. They've always got new ones in the pipeline. What certainly may have happened since the scandal was the decision to give the case an "OM Look" and try to brand it as a Digital OM. Which was my point.

I think that what you said as a PR cleanser is partially true, but more by accident than conscious effort.

Remember that Olympus Imaging was already under fire for at least three years and was even given an ultimatum by Kikukawa of "better be profitable by 2015 or else." Whether he would follow up with the threat or not is besides the point for this- it was said publicly and as such the pressure is on.

Given the #1 criticism of the Pens have been first AF then that sensor, it's only reasonable to expect that Olympus would come out with a more pro model, and trying to their previous film heritage, look for the line with more "cache" vs a pen- the OM.

Although I would have liked to think they could have switched to a bigger sensor size and come with say a custom of boutique lenses (think Fuji X1 Pro with a set of primes), in the end launching a new mount is a lot of cash, and would put into question many things. It doesn't take advantage of the momentum m4/3rds as a system already has.

I think it's only more a reasonable business conclusion, than a conscious attempt at "PR cleaning." This model was probably planned for a while, well before the scandal.

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

First of all, it is completely untrue that 4/3rds was "never designed for more than 20MP" - that was just a pie in the sky figure Oly threw around when such resolutions seemed almost inconceivable. And as it turns out, 4/3rds lenses are measured to have better resolution across the entire frame than most of the competition at the same MP count.

And your contention of diffraction limiting is a complete non-issue - it is relative to DoF, not F-number. If a lens is diffraction limited on 4/3rds at F4, it will be limited at F8 on full frame - but the DoF of both formats at these F-numbers is exactly the same! In other words, diffraction limiting is exactly the same for all formats for a given resolution.

ljmac said:

First of all, it is completely untrue that 4/3rds was "never designed for more than 20MP" - that was just a pie in the sky figure Oly threw around when such resolutions seemed almost inconceivable.

Click to expand...

It's in the 4/3 white paper. They said they were building the system with an upper limit of 20 megapixels in mind. Maybe they just threw that number in there, but they still haven't shown it to be in error.

ljmac said:

And your contention of diffraction limiting is a complete non-issue - it is relative to DoF, not F-number. If a lens is diffraction limited on 4/3rds at F4, it will be limited at F8 on full frame - but the DoF of both formats at these F-numbers is exactly the same! In other words, diffraction limiting is exactly the same for all formats for a given resolution.

Click to expand...

For a given resolution at a comparable DoF. However, in practice a 4/3 sensor hitting diffraction limits at f/4 and a 24x36 sensor hitting limits at f/8 may be seeing the same DoF, but the 24x36 camera can open up an f/2.8 lens by three stops from f/8 sacrificing DoF relative to the 4/3 sensor, but allowing the use of a camera with significantly higher pixel density.

And of course there's the noise and dynamic range issues with the smaller sensors. That was the biggest issue for me. I'd pull up shadows and they'd be full of noise. As soon as I got my D700 I stopped having as many problems in processing challenging RAW files. I've got a little Samsung NX now that I keep in the car and it has issues similar to 4/3 in certain situations. I have to think in small-sensor mode when I shoot with it, even though it's a little larger than a 4/3 sensor.

Of course the market has largely spoken and Olympus has all but abandoned the 4/3 format, choosing to focus on m4/3 and they've done OK with it. But it isn't something they should try to sell as a "Digital OM" IMO. It's kind of a slap in the face to the OM heritage and the legacy of Mr. Maitani.

RRJackson said:

The first camera company that makes a compact 24x36 system at a price point that's perceived as affordable will see huge sales.

Click to expand...

I doubt it: most people buying cameras don't care about FF . They really, truly don't. They want compact cameras that take bright, colorful, sharp looking photos. Digital camera sales overall have been declining the past few years as people are using their smart phones for taking photos instead of toting an extra camera, because the IQ of those itty bitty sensors in phones has been increasing steadily .

While a part of the development and marketing of cameras must still include enthusiasts and pros, the greatest cashflow is going to come from "soccer moms" and others who want a "small camera that gives big results" (as one ad hype put it). Which means those folks will look at the size of a NEX or m4/3, then at the unavoidably larger "FF mirrorless compact" and ask themselves why they should pay extra for a camera and lenses that are bigger, heavier but don't offer any noticeable improvement in the photos.

RRJackson said:

It's not for any arbitrary reason, though. It's because that's a very sweet spot in imager size. It's big enough to not be easily hampered by diffraction, but still small enough to permit the design of relatively compact and fast optics.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is arbitrary. When 35mm first became a still format, it was an accommodation to existing motion picture film stock. Leica and others simply used the existing film because it was perforated (allowing for rapid advance) and small enough to suit the compact cameras they were producing. It was an expediency to avoid having the expense of producing an entirely new film format.

To support this, and convince people to buy FF cameras, Canon and Nikon put a great deal of money into hyping FF as the best sensor size for pros and serious photographers.

The medium format manufacturers such as Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei and Hasselblad pushed their cameras with the same idea years ago. Ads talked about how 6X6 was the "perfect format": because it combined optimum lens efficiency with relatively compact size yet had a negative much larger than 35mm.

6X4.5 was touted as the ideal compromise between the smaller size and faster handling of 35mm and the larger size of 6X6 cameras.

Or they would go the other way and promote the idea that 6X7 was even better than 6X6 because you didn't have to crop to get the aspect ratio people preferred for portraits.

So hyping a format as being inherently superior because of the larger size is nothing new. Nor is the smaller format ultimately proving to have it's own benefits.

--

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

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

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

RRJackson said:

It's in the 4/3 white paper. They said they were building the system with an upper limit of 20 megapixels in mind. Maybe they just threw that number in there, but they still haven't shown it to be in error.

Click to expand...

The white paper didn't say it couldn't go beyond 20MP - it just said the format would be good for this (at the time very high) resolution. Once again, it was the upper limit of what was conceivable at the time, and objective measurements show that Oly's 4/3rds lenses out resolve the competition, particularly at the edges of the frame (which was a key design consideration of the 4/3rds format).

RRJackson said:

For a given resolution at a comparable DoF. However, in practice a 4/3 sensor hitting diffraction limits at f/4 and a 24x36 sensor hitting limits at f/8 may be seeing the same DoF, but the 24x36 camera can open up an f/2.8 lens by three stops from f/8 sacrificing DoF relative to the 4/3 sensor, but allowing the use of a camera with significantly higher pixel density.

Click to expand...

What you're saying here is just complete nonsense - being able to open up to F2.8 has nothing to do with resolution or diffraction limiting! Diffraction limiting defines the practical upper aperture limit relative to resolution, and as this occurs at exactly the same DoF for all formats, it is in practical terms exactly the same for all formats.

RRJackson said:

And of course there's the noise and dynamic range issues with the smaller sensors. That was the biggest issue for me. I'd pull up shadows and they'd be full of noise. As soon as I got my D700 I stopped having as many problems in processing challenging RAW files. I've got a little Samsung NX now that I keep in the car and it has issues similar to 4/3 in certain situations. I have to think in small-sensor mode when I shoot with it, even though it's a little larger than a 4/3 sensor.

Click to expand...

That is a good reason to use a larger format, although improvements in sensor technology are increasingly making this a non-issue.

RRJackson said:

Of course the market has largely spoken and Olympus has all but abandoned the 4/3 format, choosing to focus on m4/3 and they've done OK with it. But it isn't something they should try to sell as a "Digital OM" IMO. It's kind of a slap in the face to the OM heritage and the legacy of Mr. Maitani.

Click to expand...

You can see it however you want, but clearly switching to full frame at this stage of the game would be prohibitively expensive for Olympus, as well as commercial suicide - it's just totally unreasonable to expect them to switch formats now.

By the looks of it, the OM-D has been under development for quite some time. So it comes at an opportune moment, but I doubt it was planned that way. Perhaps it got an injection of R&D funds recently as a publicity generator to offset the bad news, but you can't design a system like that overnight.

Sorting through all the hype and conjecture floating around, it appears that the OM-D is the micro dslr body that Oly wasn't making and Panny was selling a lot of. If it meets the goal of fast AF with ZD glass, it will definitely be on my list. Brilliant move, cloning the OM. I have fond memories of an OM1 and even a little OM10.

As for being FF... really, FF is becoming far less relevant than it once was. Current sensor technology, even the somewhat lackluster Panny sensors, matches or exceeds what FF boasted only a few years ago, and current performance levels of APS or 4/3 sensors meet or exceed what the typical amateur uses in the typical situation. Especially in these austere times, are you really going to spend a few thousand more dollars/euros to get capability you won't use outside of a dpr spec debate? Even the shallow DOF is under threat, from software generated bokeh. It's not nearly as good as the optical solution, but it's also the first generation. With refinement, limiting DOF in PP will be as routine as doing anything else in PP.

As it is, a camera system that can AF the killer ZD glass, plus use the numerous and excellent M43 lenses, has it's appeal. If it has a Fuji sensor... so much the better.

ljmac said:

What you're saying here is just complete nonsense - being able to open up to F2.8 has nothing to do with resolution or diffraction limiting! Diffraction limiting defines the practical upper aperture limit relative to resolution, and as this occurs at exactly the same DoF for all formats, it is in practical terms exactly the same for all formats.

Click to expand...

Except the larger sensor will have shallower apparent DoF than a smaller sensor at the same aperture. If you have an f/2.8 lens on two cameras the one with the larger sensor is going to have less apparent DoF wide open and will be able to utilize a higher pixel density before showing the effects of diffraction.

ljmac said:

You can see it however you want, but clearly switching to full frame at this stage of the game would be prohibitively expensive for Olympus, as well as commercial suicide - it's just totally unreasonable to expect them to switch formats now.

Click to expand...

Then they should keep the OM-branding off their products. Pen was a half-frame camera and sort of works as a 4/3 branding. I actually liked the effort they were making to acknowledge the Pen. This move to try to associate the OM line with a small sensor is just silly, though.

And if it's unreasonable for them to start using large sensors now I've gotta wonder when it will be reasonable. 'Cause they've just about waited too long.

CharlesB58 said:

I doubt it: most people buying cameras don't care about FF . They really, truly don't.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. But most people don't buy interchangeable lens cameras. Among those who do the advantages of a larger sensor are known. It's only the economics of the situation that keep people from owning 135-format cameras.

CharlesB58 said:

While a part of the development and marketing of cameras must still include enthusiasts and pros, the greatest cashflow is going to come from "soccer moms" and others who want a "small camera that gives big results" (as one ad hype put it). Which means those folks will look at the size of a NEX or m4/3, then at the unavoidably larger "FF mirrorless compact" and ask themselves why they should pay extra for a camera and lenses that are bigger, heavier but don't offer any noticeable improvement in the photos.

Click to expand...

It's not a very hard sell. You show someone photos taken by a D3s at 12,800 and then show them photos taken by an E-5 at 3200 and they'll buy the D3s if price isn't a consideration.

CharlesB58 said:

Actually, it is arbitrary. When 35mm first became a still format, it was an accommodation to existing motion picture film stock. Leica and others simply used the existing film because it was perforated (allowing for rapid advance) and small enough to suit the compact cameras they were producing. It was an expediency to avoid having the expense of producing an entirely new film format.

Click to expand...

Yes, its origin was kind of arbitrary, but the reason the format flourished wasn't. It's a very good compromise between frame size and compact design.

CharlesB58 said:

The medium format manufacturers such as Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei and Hasselblad pushed their cameras with the same idea years ago. Ads talked about how 6X6 was the "perfect format": because it combined optimum lens efficiency with relatively compact size yet had a negative much larger than 35mm.

Click to expand...

Yep. And medium format cameras are great. All things being equal you should always go as large as possible with the "sensor size." I'm a fan of 6x9 cameras like the Fuji GSW and even old folders. The 'chromes look awesome. But the cameras are huge. And the optics are usually relatively slow and large. 135 is an excellent compromise. As soon as film quality progressed to a point where it was producing adequate quality 135 became a runaway success. For a lot of really good reasons.

RRJackson said:

CharlesB58 said:

I doubt it: most people buying cameras don't care about FF . They really, truly don't.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. But most people don't buy interchangeable lens cameras. Among those who do the advantages of a larger sensor are known. It's only the economics of the situation that keep people from owning 135-format cameras.

Click to expand...

It's not entirely economics. You seem to keep imposing your personal way of thinking on everyone else. It's size, weight, complication of the system and various other factors beyond economics.

Believe me, the people who are actual, professional marketers understand this much better than you do and know what it is that people are looking for in a camera. 135 format is not the "magic bullet" that will cause people to flock to a given camera simply because of price. It's much more complex than that.

RRJackson said:

RRJackson said:

While a part of the development and marketing of cameras must still include enthusiasts and pros, the greatest cashflow is going to come from "soccer moms" and others who want a "small camera that gives big results" (as one ad hype put it). Which means those folks will look at the size of a NEX or m4/3, then at the unavoidably larger "FF mirrorless compact" and ask themselves why they should pay extra for a camera and lenses that are bigger, heavier but don't offer any noticeable improvement in the photos.

Click to expand...

It's not a very hard sell. You show someone photos taken by a D3s at 12,800 and then show them photos taken by an E-5 at 3200 and they'll buy the D3s if price isn't a consideration.

Click to expand...

LOL OMG really? That'sa BIG "if". Seriously, do you think that the sensor alone is why the D3s is so much more expensive than the E-5? Do you think that the soccer mom or grandparent who wants a nice, affordable camera to tuck in a purse or coat pocket is going to rush to buy a D3s if the price miraculously drops to $1000? Just because you, personally, think in these terms doesn't mean the 90% of people out there who don't even bother with dslrs think the same way.

RRJackson said:

RRJackson said:

Actually, it is arbitrary. When 35mm first became a still format, it was an accommodation to existing motion picture film stock. Leica and others simply used the existing film because it was perforated (allowing for rapid advance) and small enough to suit the compact cameras they were producing. It was an expediency to avoid having the expense of producing an entirely new film format.

Click to expand...

Yes, its origin was kind of arbitrary, but the reason the format flourished wasn't. It's a very good compromise between frame size and compact design.

Click to expand...

Yes, for film. Digital...no. It was economics, pure and simple. 4cmX4cm is a much more efficient format for digital than 135.

RRJackson said:

RRJackson said:

The medium format manufacturers such as Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei and Hasselblad pushed their cameras with the same idea years ago. Ads talked about how 6X6 was the "perfect format": because it combined optimum lens efficiency with relatively compact size yet had a negative much larger than 35mm.

Click to expand...

Yep. And medium format cameras are great. All things being equal you should always go as large as possible with the "sensor size." I'm a fan of 6x9 cameras like the Fuji GSW and even old folders. The 'chromes look awesome. But the cameras are huge. And the optics are usually relatively slow and large. 135 is an excellent compromise. As soon as film quality progressed to a point where it was producing adequate quality 135 became a runaway success. For a lot of really good reasons.

Click to expand...

Back to my original point. most people don't go for maximum resolution or even maximum IQ . They go for photos which "pop". That's why jpeg engines, especially on cheaper cameras, tend to go for more vivid colors and higher contrast (even if actual resolution is decreased) because they don't pixel peep the photos looking for noise, they want something that looks good in an album or on flickr.

Seriously, RR, you demonstrate the common short-sightedness on this website, which is that enthusiasts and how we evaluate photos and gear is what drives the marketplace. For Canon and Nikon, this is a major component of their market simply because they had hundreds of thousands of pros and enthusiasts using their gear before digital became practical . For the rest of the world, selection of format size has been simply because that's what's out there and what the salesperson says they should buy.

The real if is this: if a company releases a 135 format camera that is close enough in size to existing mirrorless cameras and costs the same then yes, it would sell on the scale of the Canon AE-1 nearly 40 years ago. Ask industry experts how soon that's going to happen. ;-)

--

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

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

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

CharlesB58 said:

I doubt it: most people buying cameras don't care about FF . They really, truly don't. They want compact cameras that take bright, colorful, sharp looking photos. Digital camera sales overall have been declining the past few years as people are using their smart phones for taking photos instead of toting an extra camera, because the IQ of those itty bitty sensors in phones has been increasing steadily .

While a part of the development and marketing of cameras must still include enthusiasts and pros, the greatest cashflow is going to come from "soccer moms" and others who want a "small camera that gives big results" (as one ad hype put it). Which means those folks will look at the size of a NEX or m4/3, then at the unavoidably larger "FF mirrorless compact" and ask themselves why they should pay extra for a camera and lenses that are bigger, heavier but don't offer any noticeable improvement in the photos.

Click to expand...

I was shooting the dress rehearsal for Canadian Opera Company's production of TOSCA the other night. Right in front of me was the photographer for the largest Chinese daily newspaper in Toronto, and she was using .... get ready for it ... an iPhone to shoot the performance. I kid you not!
Video clips for the web I would guess.

Lots of pro photographers I know use 7D's and D300's, heck I know a couple who are still using 40D's, and with the continuing rise in importance of the web and mobile platforms, video capability is becoming far more important than depth of field isolation or how high the ISO goes.

I'm hoping Olympus finally gets it right with the video implementation in the OM-D. I did a media op for the opening of the theatrical version of WAR HORSE in Toronto this week using the 35-100mm f2 and mZuiko 14-150mm on an E-PL3 and it was a struggle.

Lack of manual focusing while the video is rolling, no sound monitoring, no input for external mic without losing the viewfinder, they really screwed up the video mode on that camera, and all for the lack of a few low cost jacks and who knows why on the manual focusing.

With useable video, and improved AF with 4/3's lenses the OM-D could be a full on alternative for journalists.

Douglas Brown

I'll have to jump in with everyone else here who is saying that this "inevitable move towards FF is only a matter of time and economics" makes no sense.

To insist that sensors will, in general, get larger - which will prevent further size reductions in bodies and lenses - goes against every trend and advancement we have seen in technology and electronics over the last 50 years.

Even some prominent internet photogs are stating that the need for the FF DSLR is on the decline. I think Trey Ratcliffe has claimed he's purchased his last FF DSLR.

Kirk Tuck wrote a great piece on his blog yesterday about the future of cameras (and photography in general) that lays out the many reasons why much better than I could. It's a must read, loved this line... "I predict that the market for traditional, pro level DSLRs (the Nikon D4, the Canon 1DX) will remain strong as a status symbol for doctors, dentists, software engineers and trustfund enthusiasts" - Kirk Tuck

• Jeff

It probably make sense that if it is is interchangeable it will be 4/3 as there is probably no way olympus will go with another system lenses.

But then they may do a fuji x100 variation and put APS sensor with non changeable lens.

CharlesB58 said:

LOL OMG really? That'sa BIG "if". Seriously, do you think that the sensor alone is why the D3s is so much more expensive than the E-5?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm saying that, all other factors being equal, the camera with superior image quality will trump its rivals. At least for people who care about things like that. Compact form factor and light weight are a huge thing, too. It's why I originally bought on OM-2n in the 70's. Without giving up image quality or functionality I could use a camera that wasn't a brick like an F2As.

CharlesB58 said:

Seriously, RR, you demonstrate the common short-sightedness on this website, which is that enthusiasts and how we evaluate photos and gear is what drives the marketplace.

Click to expand...

I know that there are other driving factors in system popularity, not the least of which used to be getting shelf space in retailers. However, branding something as an "OM" isn't a move designed to attract people who don't know anything about photography and don't care about quality.

CharlesB58 said:

The real if is this: if a company releases a 135 format camera that is close enough in size to existing mirrorless cameras and costs the same then yes, it would sell on the scale of the Canon AE-1 nearly 40 years ago. Ask industry experts how soon that's going to happen. ;-)

Click to expand...

You never know.

RRJackson said:

Except the larger sensor will have shallower apparent DoF than a smaller sensor at the same aperture. If you have an f/2.8 lens on two cameras the one with the larger sensor is going to have less apparent DoF wide open and will be able to utilize a higher pixel density before showing the effects of diffraction.

Click to expand...

This is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with diffraction limiting. What you're talking about is DoF control, which is an advantage of larger formats.

But then and again, you can get good optical performance with an F1.4 lens wide open on 4/3rds. Once you stop a full frame F1.4 lens down enough to get good optical performance, the DoF 'advantage' is lost.

RRJackson said:

And if it's unreasonable for them to start using large sensors now I've gotta wonder when it will be reasonable. 'Cause they've just about waited too long.

Click to expand...

Your last sentence sums it up - they have waited too long, for both commercial and technical reasons. Going full frame now would be crazy.

You refer too full frame as a "sweet spot", but Sony's latest APS-C sensors suggest otherwise - these things have 13 stops of DR, and clean ISO into 5 figures! And if you cut Sony's 24MP sensor down to 4/3rds size, you'd have a 14MP sensor with exactly the same performance. So it is inevitable that 4/3rsd will shortly achieve sensor performance that was once the sole province of full frame.

I know you're going to say "but if we apply the same technology to FF, it will be even better". This is true, but how much DR and ISO performance do you need? At some point, it just isn't worth the extra cost and bulk, and that day is clearly upon us.

ljmac said:

This is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with diffraction limiting. What you're talking about is DoF control, which is an advantage of larger formats.

Click to expand...

As you stop a lens down you can see and measure the point at which diffraction sets in. In cameras with similar sensor resolution a 4/3 camera that hits diffraction limits at f/4 will give way to a 135-based system that hits diffraction limits at f/8 (not exactly, but close). Now double the sensor resolution in the 135-based camera and it will begin to hit diffraction limits at f/4, but at a DoF that 4/3 would see at f/2. Double resolution again and the 135 camera will hit diffraction limits at f/2, but at DoF that would represent f/1 on 4/3.

ljmac said:

But then and again, you can get good optical performance with an F1.4 lens wide open on 4/3rds.

Click to expand...

Not really. Not in my old PanaLeica 25mm f/1.4 was any indication.

ljmac said:

Your last sentence sums it up - they have waited too long, for both commercial and technical reasons. Going full frame now would be crazy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they should stick with tiny low-resolution sensors with no dynamic range. It's the wave of the future.

ljmac said:

You refer too full frame as a "sweet spot", but Sony's latest APS-C sensors suggest otherwise - these things have 13 stops of DR, and clean ISO into 5 figures!

Click to expand...

And a 135 sensor using the same technology would beat that performance by a stop or two.

ljmac said:

And if you cut Sony's 24MP sensor down to 4/3rds size, you'd have a 14MP sensor with exactly the same performance.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but with far less resolution. Which was one of the big points.

ljmac said:

I know you're going to say "but if we apply the same technology to FF, it will be even better". This is true, but how much DR and ISO performance do you need?

Click to expand...

As much as you can get for the foreseeable future. Here's a metric. The rumored Nikon D800 is supposed to have a 36 megapixel sensor. Oh, who needs something like that, right? Well, take the resolution (7360x4912) and divide by 300. That 36 megapixel sensor is still only going to be good for a 16" x 24" print. Not exactly Gursky territory.

At least Olympus didn't kill anyone Union Carbide @ Bhopal. Not knocking any country but shady, business, poltics are justone and the same....

RRJackson said:

ljmac said:

This is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with diffraction limiting. What you're talking about is DoF control, which is an advantage of larger formats.

Click to expand...

As you stop a lens down you can see and measure the point at which diffraction sets in. In cameras with similar sensor resolution a 4/3 camera that hits diffraction limits at f/4 will give way to a 135-based system that hits diffraction limits at f/8 (not exactly, but close). Now double the sensor resolution in the 135-based camera and it will begin to hit diffraction limits at f/4, but at a DoF that 4/3 would see at f/2. Double resolution again and the 135 camera will hit diffraction limits at f/2, but at DoF that would represent f/1 on 4/3.

Click to expand...

No we're going around in circles: once again, diffraction limiting is relative to DoF, not F-number, and this is precisely the same across all formats. Once again, the DoF of 4/3rds at F2 is exactly the same as the DoF of full frame at F4. So they have exactly the same diffraction limiting for any given resolution.

RRJackson said:

Yeah, they should stick with tiny low-resolution sensors with no dynamic range. It's the wave of the future.

Click to expand...

Once again, Sony's latest APS-C sensors show that subframe sensors are capable of great performance with current technology, and even Panny's current 16MP 4/3rds sensors are decent - I agree their 12MP sensor wasn't competitive, but that's about technology, not sensor size as such. Future technology will surely make 4/3rds good enough for just about any real world use, seeing as APS-C is already there.

RRJackson said:

RRJackson said:

You refer too full frame as a "sweet spot", but Sony's latest APS-C sensors suggest otherwise - these things have 13 stops of DR, and clean ISO into 5 figures!

Click to expand...

And a 135 sensor using the same technology would beat that performance by a stop or two.

Click to expand...

I already pre-empted you saying this below.

RRJackson said:

RRJackson said:

And if you cut Sony's 24MP sensor down to 4/3rds size, you'd have a 14MP sensor with exactly the same performance.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but with far less resolution. Which was one of the big points.

Click to expand...

Once again - as history has consistently shown - the resolution will continue to get higher for a given quality level. And I suspect 14-16MP is enough for most people.

RRJackson said:

RRJackson said:

I know you're going to say "but if we apply the same technology to FF, it will be even better". This is true, but how much DR and ISO performance do you need?

Click to expand...

As much as you can get for the foreseeable future. Here's a metric. The rumored Nikon D800 is supposed to have a 36 megapixel sensor. Oh, who needs something like that, right? Well, take the resolution (7360x4912) and divide by 300. That 36 megapixel sensor is still only going to be good for a 16" x 24" print. Not exactly Gursky territory.

Click to expand...

Well this statement clearly shows that you never actually have printed large, which tells me you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't need to be 300dpi for a full colour image - it only needs to be 150dpi. And in practice, as the prints get larger we view them at a greater distance, so it doesn't even need to be that much in reality.

When I first heard about the OM-D I immediately thought, by default, that Olympus finally got to its common senses and will release a true OM digital. I mean by true that it is a 24mm x 36 mm size true OM gem. My adrenalin level shot through the roof, WOW What a TREAT!. Then I realized that NO, it is a gimmick again, not a true descendant of the legendary OM breed. Boinggggggg....., there went my adrenalin rush down the drain. Yup, 4/3rd again, a sheep in the skin of the wolf, not the real timber wolf.

Antal I Kozma said:

Best,
AIK

Click to expand...

The m43 OM-D will have better Image Quality and better low light capability than the OM film cameras, or any 35mm film cameras for that matter. So I disagree that it is not in keeping with the spirit of the original OM cameras. Did you use the old film cameras? Did you like how ISO (ASA) 3200 film looked?