1943Mike
Leading Member
Does anyone think that Olympus will offer an OMD camera with a 24 mp or greater sensor in the near future?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
OMD with more MP?
- Thread starter 1943Mike
- Start date
Solution
Chez Wimpy
Veteran Member
That E-1 must have been magic. The EM-5 was the first m43 to equal (even surpass) my older APS-C and FF cameras in dynamic range at base-ISO.With a base iso quality comparable to the venerable E-1, whose files are still unsurpassed by these MP cramped sensors...
Chez Wimpy
Veteran Member
More MP would certainly help where a portion of our final images is interpolated due to the software correction of m43 lenses. I often saw this aliasing near the corners of my wider angle shots on my G1 when printing large, and I found the MP boost in my GH2 and EM5 helped. Going to 24MP would certainly make a difference in larger (A2+) sized prints. Even with the older 14-45 kit lens there is clearly a lot of resolution going to waste.
--
-CW
Last edited:
Bhima78
Senior Member
My old Canon 20D with its bigger APS-C sensor and HUGE pixel pitch at only 8-megapixels can't come close to the IQ, DR and noise performance of my EM-10 with its tiny sensor and miniscule pixel pitch. Back in those days, it really was true that you wanted less pixels to deal with noise and DR but today, these engineers have made great strides in both sensor and processor technology that the final product of more megapixels and smaller pixel pitch doesn't mean less DR or more noise. Its like these scientists actually can walk and chew gum.
Last edited:
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
'Tis a fact.
Are you trying to say that the 8 MP 20D was more noisy than the 6 MP 300D, 6 MP 10D, or the 3 MP DSLR that came before them?
Same as always.
photohounds
Senior Member
What for? Marketing?
Specsmanship?
Specsmanship?
photohounds
Senior Member
Don't see Nikon having a "problem" AFAIK they make no sensors.
mferencz
Leading Member
[No message]
T
Tony8232
Guest
If each pixel can have more dynamic range due to less noise the overall DR has to go up at least as I see it. How does the new senor have increased DR it has to be because of superior design. Couple that with the larger pixel size of the 12mp sensor that gathers more light at the same exposure then to me it seems to be obvious that DR will go up.
Anders W
Forum Pro
What you overlook (and what Ulric has in mind) is that you can regain the DR lost because of smaller pixels by downsampling or, equivalently, using a bit more NR. The idea here is that a sensor with more pixels can give you more flexibility. If the light is good and you can shoot at base ISO where noise is not troublesome, you can enjoy the additional resolution. If the light is not so good and you need to shoot at higher ISOs, you can trade the extra resolution for better signal-noise performance by means of downsampling/NR.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Sure. Just questioning the factual basis of yours. Take this RAW from IR for example:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/EM1FAR2I0100.ORF.HTM
Do you find the noise troublesome if you let LR develop it at default settings?
I didn't suggest it was. I merely called attention to a fact.
That point is not salient at all as I hoped I had already made clear.
What is your factual basis for claiming that lowering the resolution of Canon FF sensors would not fix what ails them?
And since you think lowering the resolution would not help in Canon's case, why do you think increasing the resolution would be detrimental in the case of MFT?
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Well, not "equivalently"; rather, "more efficiently". That is, using NR will result in more detail being retained for any given noise level or less noise for any given detail level than downsampling.
Perfectly stated!
Anders W
Forum Pro
True at least up to a point. What I meant to say here was just that downsampling is a form of NR (although not necessarily the most efficient form).
Thanks! Can't say I am surprised you like it.
Alex Notpro
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,069
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 367
FYI all 16MP cameras use a Bayer CFA sensor, which means they're really 4MP interpolated to fake 16MP.
I'd like a real 16MP camera please.
I'd like a real 16MP camera please.
T
Tony8232
Guest
I didn't overlook down sampling I simply didn't know anything about. I'm going to have to do some reading about camera sensors. Is this done by the camera?
Anders W
Forum Pro
Downsampling simply means that you save the image at a smaller size than the original one. If, for example, you save a 12 MP image (say 4000 x 3000) as a 3 MP image (2000 x 1500), you downsample. When you do so, the signal-noise performance for each pixel in the 3 MP image is better than for the pixels in the original 12 MP image since each pixel in the 3 MP image is the average of four input pixels, and when averaging, the noise tends to cancel out.
It can be done by the camera (if you set it up to shoot jpegs with fewer pixels than the sensor has) but this is rarely a good idea. It's better to shoot at the original resolution and then save a copy as a smaller size on your computer (while retaining the original). The best is to shoot RAW, apply some NR in the RAW converter if needed and then save a jpeg in whatever size you like at the moment. If you want to go back and do something else later on, you still have your RAW and can do whatever you like with it.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Actually, they're 16 MP monochrome pixels interpolated into 16 MP full color pixels.
It would be matched by a 32 MP sensor covered with a Bayer CFA and outperformed by a 64 MP sensor covered with a Bayer CFA.
T
Tony8232
Guest
--Im going to give it a try.
Thanks.
Thanks.
photohounds
Senior Member
How noisy a 4/3 sensor is? Do some maths, there isn't much in it and the razor sharp lenses more than make up for it. Granted there's
.
Tell me again what FMF (full MARKETING frame) gives you for the money, size, weight? Your Chiropractor and credit card provider probably LIKE this massive heavy gear, your wallet and back may differ.
.
I LIKED my Mamiya "full Frame" RB-67 too, it killed the very best 35mm miniature format back for IQ in the day (but at a size/weight/cost penalty).
.
THEN there are the lenses that MORE than equalise .. here ..
.
Compare the huge, heavy, expensive (but yes a stop faster) Canon 85/1.2 with the Zuiko 45mm/1.8 at apertures the ZD can do which the Z can't manage (compare the Panny if you need 1.2 speed or wait for the f0.85 lens coming out ).
.
Back on earth, taking actual pictures, the Canon lens has trouble besting the 1/5th the size (by volume), 1/9th the weight and 1/5 the cost Zuiko for sharpness at any aperture other than f2.8 where it's a tad ahead. The Canon 1.8 is MUCH worse than the 1.2.
.
This "blur units" test is harder on smaller sensors. The "blur units" (pixels) are smaller for smaller sensors, so MFT lenses have to be BETTER to produce equal numbers to FMF. Twice as good in fact (with similar pixel count).
.
Even with that disadvantage, the Zuiko generally walks all over the almost mythically "revered" lens EXCEPT where you want the ears of a portrait subject to completely disappear or some other "bragging rights" soft focus effect.
.
That giant, costly lens has a reasonably OK sharpness sweet spot of about 1/20th the image area at f1.2 - not much.
.
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Odd that people complain a lens is not sharp enough,
and then proceed to make pics where 95% of the pic is OOF .. same for noise complaints
General Pics:
photohounds.smugmug.com
Oly and other .. Gear test samples - even RB-67!:
How DO OMDs cope with dim-light action and smoke?
photohounds.smugmug.com
.
Tell me again what FMF (full MARKETING frame) gives you for the money, size, weight? Your Chiropractor and credit card provider probably LIKE this massive heavy gear, your wallet and back may differ.
.
I LIKED my Mamiya "full Frame" RB-67 too, it killed the very best 35mm miniature format back for IQ in the day (but at a size/weight/cost penalty).
.
THEN there are the lenses that MORE than equalise .. here ..
.
Compare the huge, heavy, expensive (but yes a stop faster) Canon 85/1.2 with the Zuiko 45mm/1.8 at apertures the ZD can do which the Z can't manage (compare the Panny if you need 1.2 speed or wait for the f0.85 lens coming out ).
.
Back on earth, taking actual pictures, the Canon lens has trouble besting the 1/5th the size (by volume), 1/9th the weight and 1/5 the cost Zuiko for sharpness at any aperture other than f2.8 where it's a tad ahead. The Canon 1.8 is MUCH worse than the 1.2.
.
This "blur units" test is harder on smaller sensors. The "blur units" (pixels) are smaller for smaller sensors, so MFT lenses have to be BETTER to produce equal numbers to FMF. Twice as good in fact (with similar pixel count).
.
Even with that disadvantage, the Zuiko generally walks all over the almost mythically "revered" lens EXCEPT where you want the ears of a portrait subject to completely disappear or some other "bragging rights" soft focus effect.
.
That giant, costly lens has a reasonably OK sharpness sweet spot of about 1/20th the image area at f1.2 - not much.
.
--
Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Odd that people complain a lens is not sharp enough,
and then proceed to make pics where 95% of the pic is OOF .. same for noise complaints
General Pics:
photohounds
Keen on photography since youth. Built a darkroom. Shoot for quality pro results over a range of styles. Also keen on music (I shoot a bit of live) and freedom for all people. I can travel - your shout :)
photohounds.smugmug.com
Performing Arts (Bands theatre etc.)
musician,actor,dancer,naked,music,actress,model,play,production,broadway
photohounds.smugmug.com
sderdiarian
Senior Member
I think we'll see at least a 20MP sensor in Olympus' next E-M product cycle.
Currently Olympus mFT tracking ability has been less than stellar, but clearly strides are being made, the E-M1 presenting a solid improvement, and the GH4 apparently having leap-frogged it.
With the 300mm f4 telephoto on the horizon in early 2015, and the E-M5 (Olympus' true standard bearer, having saved the company's bacon) overdue for an updgrade likely to include another big step forward in focus tracking, a whole new horizon opens up: APS-C competitive BIF and sports photography. What goes with this territory is the need to crop, often heavily, to best capture you're subject. 16MP simply no longer cuts it in this market.
And when entry level $500 DSLR's (D3100) come with 24MP and decent focus tracking, it's imperative that mFT stay in the game.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum