Olympus resolution and sensor future ?

DonParrot · Apr 17, 2015

Tom Ames said:
Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Nothing more IS needed. I still can shoot fantastic pis with my E-30. Although it has got just 12 MPs and a thick AA filtre. High-ISO performance and DR could be better but this does not depend on the MP figure. And the low-ISO performance is clearly better than the one of today's 16- ore more-MP sensors.
Get real! You are chasing a bait the industry is holding out of your reach - just - to get your money.

Advent1sam · Apr 17, 2015

Tom Ames said:
Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Indeed, it is not, 20mp will be a waste of time now, 24mp, only if they do not impact on noise, if not then OK they should do it.

TheEngineer · Apr 17, 2015

Guy Parsons said:
The first question is - why do you need more than 16MP?

Because things evolve, improve and get better, so why be content with the subpar?

As Voltaire once said: "Better is the enemy of good".

TheEngineer · Apr 17, 2015

DonParrot said:
Tom Ames said:

Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Click to expand...

Nothing more IS needed.

Wrong.

Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?

DonParrot said:
Get real! You are chasing a bait the industry is holding out of your reach - just - to get your money.

Yeah right, sorry but not everybody is taking pics of their cat to upload to facebook.

Oly's 16mp sensor is a great improvement to the 12mp sensor they recycled over and over again, but compared to the current competition it's just not good enough anymore. When I can buy a 28mp mirrorless aps-c with better image quality, a sensor with almost half the resolution and worse high iso just doesn't cut it anymore.

There is so much wrong with your way of thinking I don't even know what to say but just imagine this: If nobody would buy any cameras anymore because they'd all think what they have is good enough, there would also not be anymore cameras/features/improvements because every camera manufacturer would go out of business...

For me it's quite simple: If I don't get at least 22-24 mp with my next Oly 1-2 years down the road (Samsung has 28mp now) I will be spending my money elsewhere.

And I don't think I'm alone in this...

TheEngineer · Apr 17, 2015

Tom Ames said:
Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

I agree.

I read a while ago a post with an interesting idea. Oly should just make a 40 Mp camera that can downsample when the noise gets too high. Outside in the sun you can enjoy the full details and resolution that 40 mp gives you and when its dark it downsamples to 12-16mp or so and still keeps usable high iso.

Member said:
See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras

I don't as I'm objective in this matter. I have plenty of Oly gear and shot over 120k images with my e-m10, so I do know the limits of the sensor very well. I also took plenty of photos with other cameras and systems so I know what I can compare it to.

The Oly 16mp sensor was a worthy upgrade but now its time for another. Considering that it came out over 3 years ago, it's actually overdue ...

Member said:
It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

I saw the same in the Canon camp: "no no, 20-22 mp is good enough, we don't need 36 like Nikon as that's just a waste"... and now that the 5Ds is announced it's entirely the opposite.

Just like it will be with dynamic range should the "measly" ~12 stops ever be raised up to the Nikon 14+...

Tom Ames · Apr 17, 2015

TheEngineer said:
DonParrot said:

Tom Ames said:

Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Click to expand...

Nothing more IS needed.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?

TheEngineer said:

Get real! You are chasing a bait the industry is holding out of your reach - just - to get your money.

Click to expand...

Yeah right, sorry but not everybody is taking pics of their cat to upload to facebook.

Oly's 16mp sensor is a great improvement to the 12mp sensor they recycled over and over again, but compared to the current competition it's just not good enough anymore. When I can buy a 28mp mirrorless aps-c with better image quality, a sensor with almost half the resolution and worse high iso just doesn't cut it anymore.

There is so much wrong with your way of thinking I don't even know what to say but just imagine this: If nobody would buy any cameras anymore because they'd all think what they have is good enough, there would also not be anymore cameras/features/improvements because every camera manufacturer would go out of business...

Don't worry, DonParrott has E-30, DMC-FZ1000, E-M5, E-M1 and the GH4.

I'm sure she will buy the next 16mp camera as well

HL53 · Apr 17, 2015

Hi Gil,

I have read a lot of comments on your thread that basically state that 16mpx is enough etc., etc, but the point everyone seems to be missing is that history shows that every time the manufacturers have increased the pixel count on any sensor they have also increased dynamic range and reduced noise. They have made a better sensor overall.

The EM-1 sensor is miles better than the EP-1 sensor and is a match for my old Sony A-900 full frame but it is not as good as my more modern D800 full frame. That’s just how sensors evolve.

The only down sides to increasing resolution (based on the past examples) would appear to be, files size, needing better lenses and requiring better technique. On the last point just ask anyone who owns a D800 or Sony A7R what happens when you employ poor technique.

In the case of MFT sensors the increases will be slight as the sensor has fairly high pixel density already; the bigger increases will be (logically) in bigger sensors.

Manufacturers will always increase resolution where they can, up to the point where they cannot improve or match the last generation in terms of noise and DR regardless of our opinions.

Best regards,

Howard

DonParrot · Apr 17, 2015

TheEngineer said:
DonParrot said:

Tom Ames said:

Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Click to expand...

Nothing more IS needed.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?

But you think you can do so? Say no more.

TheEngineer said:
TheEngineer said:

Get real! You are chasing a bait the industry is holding out of your reach - just - to get your money.

Click to expand...

Yeah right, sorry but not everybody is taking pics of their cat to upload to facebook.

Amazingly, Six MP pics were used for high-gloss mag covers, big placards and everything else and these pics still are gorgeous. I only can repeat it: get real.

TheEngineer said:
Oly's 16mp sensor is a great improvement to the 12mp sensor they recycled over and over again, but compared to the current competition it's just not good enough anymore.

The improvement wasn't the MP count but other features such as the better high-ISO performance. 16 MP is absolutely good enough and with the high-res mode that already has been announced to be usable handheld, in the E-M1 MKII, a 30-MP sensor is even more absurd.

TheEngineer said:
When I can buy a 28mp mirrorless aps-c with better image quality, a sensor with almost half the resolution and worse high iso just doesn't cut it anymore.

Well, IQ always is a sum of several factors and to be honest, I haven't seen any NX1 pictures (not low-light) that couldn't have been shot at least as well with one of the crurrent µFT cameras. In addition, µFT is lens-wise so clearly ahead that Samsung will have to try very very hard to catch up.
And the high-ISO performance is hampered not improved by more MPs.
By the way: What do you need this higher reslution for? For a 1.600 x 0.900 metre poster you look at from a 10cm distance? Your'e caught in the net of the industry's marketing and don't realise what happened.
And the particularly regrettable factor: the more people act and argue like you, the more the µFT manufacturers will be forced to increase the MP count indeed. With the result of no better pics at all - but every purchaser of new cameras being forced to buy a new hard drive, new software, new processors and so on and - of course - a new K4 screen to be able to detect the 'improvement' provided by the new sensor.
All this makes me really sick. How can adult people be so gullible?

TheEngineer said:
There is so much wrong with your way of thinking I don't even know what to say but just imagine this: If nobody would buy any cameras anymore because they'd all think what they have is good enough, there would also not be anymore cameras/features/improvements because every camera manufacturer would go out of business...

There are so many other things that still can and should be improved in cameras - such as AF performance, JPEG engines or the High-ISO performance mentioned by you and far more. The MP count, however, definitely doesn't need any improvement.

TheEngineer said:
For me it's quite simple: If I don't get at least 22-24 mp with my next Oly 1-2 years down the road (Samsung has 28mp now) I will be spending my money elsewhere.

And I don't think I'm alone in this...

Farewell.

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch

DonParrot · Apr 17, 2015

Tom Ames said:
TheEngineer said:

DonParrot said:

Tom Ames said:

Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he

Click to expand...

Nothing more IS needed.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Maybe you think thats good enough for you, but who gave you the right to speak for others?

Member said:

Get real! You are chasing a bait the industry is holding out of your reach - just - to get your money.

Click to expand...

Yeah right, sorry but not everybody is taking pics of their cat to upload to facebook.

Oly's 16mp sensor is a great improvement to the 12mp sensor they recycled over and over again, but compared to the current competition it's just not good enough anymore. When I can buy a 28mp mirrorless aps-c with better image quality, a sensor with almost half the resolution and worse high iso just doesn't cut it anymore.

There is so much wrong with your way of thinking I don't even know what to say but just imagine this: If nobody would buy any cameras anymore because they'd all think what they have is good enough, there would also not be anymore cameras/features/improvements because every camera manufacturer would go out of business...

Click to expand...

Don't worry, DonParrott has E-30, DMC-FZ1000, E-M5, E-M1 and the GH4.

I'm sure she will buy the next 16mp camera as well

Apart from me being a 'he' you probably will be right. *gg*

javafool · Apr 17, 2015

Airmel said:
Ben Herrmann said:

So, I personally (the way I feel - not anyone else who wants to argue the point) is that a 20 MP sensor is right around the corner (and much welcomed) and hopefully, it will have superb IQ all the way around. I do lots of cropping and having the extra MP's really helps.

Click to expand...

Just curious, what method of analysis did you use to come up with 20mp? Was it simply the fact that it crosses the 20mp threshold and therefore sounds better?

As many have pointing out before, the megapixel wars illustrate a fine example of the law of diminishing returns. A jump from 16mp to 20mp will yield a negligible 11% increase in resolution, at the expense of a 25% increase in processing cost (think operation speed) and storage space.

The very fact that we are discussing sensors in terms of megapixels rather than actual resolution means that we have been conditioned to think about these things in terms that favor marketing, not science.

Olympus has made it clear that they will not entertain the notion that more megapixels are better unless the associated hit in IQ can be minimized. I am thankful that they take such a position.

--
AirMel
http://www.mel-photo.com
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those that know binary and those that don't.

It is far more than megapixels in my opinion. Here is a link that lists 57 changes from the EM5 to the EM5 II. A lot of those are technological advancements developed over the past 3+ years since the OMD-EM5 release.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...pus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-and-the-om-d-e-m5-44571

Considering all these mechanical, processor and technology improvements incorporated in the new camera, why shouldn't we expect some sort of significant M4/3 sensor improvement over those same 3+ years? Lens technology has also taken a significant leap.

I liked my Apple IIe when I first bought it, but that was then.

Terry

--
E-30 DSLR, E-P3 & OM-D E-M5, Sony RX100M1 & RX100M3

junk1 · Apr 17, 2015

Yeah, but what about Panasonic? They might want to get a leap on the Sony sensors, unfortunately. 16MP is a sensor this size makes sense when you compare to the Sony A6000 camera having 24MP...pixel size is pretty similar, right?

Heck, I might even prefer and even smaller sensor (but with the same pixel size) of 10 or 12MP!

Airmel said:
Olympus has made it clear that they will not entertain the notion that more megapixels are better unless the associated hit in IQ can be minimized. I am thankful that they take such a position.

--
AirMel
http://www.mel-photo.com
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those that know binary and those that don't.

joeletx · Apr 17, 2015

TheEngineer said:
Because things evolve, improve and get better, so why be content with the subpar?

As Voltaire once said: "Better is the enemy of good".

Could not say any better!

cainn24 · Apr 17, 2015

Tom Caldwell said:
The real advantage of larger populated sensors goes unsaid. This is not greater resolution as for screen purposes and even for most printing purposes the extra pixels are lost

For me the real advantage of greater resolution is in fact greater resolution. There will always be people who, in addition to deriving enjoyment from an image as a whole, derive further enjoyment from examining all of the details in an image a little more closely. This is particularly the case with wildlife photography which is my own primary area of interest.

Richard Feynman said it best in my opinion:

Tom Caldwell said:
and perhaps only the best (most expensive) lenses are capable of making full use of them anyway.

You'll see noticeable improvements even with cheap lenses, and even after downsampling: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55535509

And even at the long end of the Oly 75-300 II: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55629712

which isn't known for being particularly sharp.

Sure, going from 16 to 20MP (or even 24) wont net us the same degree of improvement but rather than being stuck at 16MP forever I'd rather see the incremental improvements begin as soon as possible so we can get there sooner rather than later.

junk1 · Apr 17, 2015

You're kind of playing number games though. You must be talking horizontal AND vertical resolution. 1.12 x 1.12 = 1.25 is how you got 12%. Still have 25% more pixels and theoretically can therefore print a 25% larger print with no loss in image quality.

In reality the lens won't be able to resolve 25% more detail, not even close I think based on upsampling m43rds images and comparing against higher res cameras. And those cameras (Sony a6000 for example) have physically larger sensors, and therefore a 24mp m4rds sensor would not even fare that well.

Great Bustard said:
Put more pixels behind *any* lens and get more resolution, all else equal. The maximum possible resolution increase from 16 MP to 20 MP with a perfect lens under ideal circumstances is 12%, again, all else equal.

junk1 · Apr 17, 2015

I use an old (but excellent) Fuji F20 (6mp, same guts as the F30/F31) on my "drone" and have made 16x20 prints that people love.

Unless you're taking static landscape pictures on a tripod, you won't get the sensor's full resolution anyhow. The tiniest bit of camera movement or "shutter shock" will lower the images resolution by more than the difference between "only" 16 MP and 24 MP.

And Sony cameras don't have options for sharp lenses, which is why I'm here and not on that msg forum.

(note: I don't own a m43 yet)

TomFid · Apr 17, 2015

junk1 said:
In reality the lens won't be able to resolve 25% more detail, not even close I think based on upsampling m43rds images and comparing against higher res cameras. And those cameras (Sony a6000 for example) have physically larger sensors, and therefore a 24mp m4rds sensor would not even fare that well.

I think the experiments with the EM5ii hires mode suggest otherwise. To my eye at least, the test shots with the 75mm bested the D810, so at least the better lenses have substantial headroom. The density/noise tradeoff is another matter, of course.

cainn24 · Apr 17, 2015

junk1 said:
You're kind of playing number games though. You must be talking horizontal AND vertical resolution. 1.12 x 1.12 = 1.25 is how you got 12%. Still have 25% more pixels and theoretically can therefore print a 25% larger print with no loss in image quality.

In reality the lens won't be able to resolve 25% more detail, not even close I think based on upsampling m43rds images and comparing against higher res cameras. And those cameras (Sony a6000 for example) have physically larger sensors, and therefore a 24mp m4rds sensor would not even fare that well.

Once upon a time I used to be one of those people who believed that most of the MFT lenses I was likely to use wouldn't really benefit much from having a higher resolution sensor behind them and so I never advocated for one. Even after it was explained to me that I was probably in error on this point, and even after I understood the explanation, I still didn't properly appreciate the degree to which it could be true. Not until I started playing with my E-M5 Mark II anyway: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55535509

Now I can't think of anything better than a 4/3"-type version of the Sony 1"-type BSI sensor, same sized pixels and all.

cainn24 · Apr 17, 2015

junk1 said:
Unless you're taking static landscape pictures on a tripod, you won't get the sensor's full resolution anyhow. The tiniest bit of camera movement or "shutter shock" will lower the images resolution by more than the difference between "only" 16 MP and 24 MP.

/sigh

If I was a religious man I'd be praying for patience right about now. Anyway...

Watch this:

E-M5 mark II, 75-300mm II @ 300mm, 1/100s, tripod vs hand-held:

Tripod left (IS off, electronic shutter), hand-held right (IS on, electronic shutter)

Those are center crops from an A2 test chart shot from about 9 meters away. Multiple images were shot from the tripod to ensure consistency. Multiple hand-held shots were taken as well (from a standing position utilizing typical long-lens technique), and a little bit more than half of them were just as sharp as the tripod mounted shot. So if I can do this @ 300mm and 1/100s, which is a pretty challenging situation (and I wasn't even feeling particularly steady at the time), I guess the question is this: what has led you to conclude that this problem you speak of is so significant that the benefit of more MP would be subsumed by the problem of camera shake?

Just to show that we're not coming up against a print resolution limitation here, here is the chart element in question at a greater degree of magnification (shorter camera-to-subject distance):

Unfortunately I didn't think to do a High-Res shot of this chart because I wasn't approaching this test from that angle at the time. If I repeat it I will. But we can still demonstrate that there is indeed a resolution advantage to be realized even with this lens at this focal length: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55629712

My guess is that given the effectiveness of IBIS, the eradication of shutter-shock, and the fact that much of the time people are probably going to be shooting at shorter focal lengths and faster shutter speeds, the MP advantage will be a real one.

joeletx · Apr 17, 2015

HL53 said:
Hi Gil,

I have read a lot of comments on your thread that basically state that 16mpx is enough etc., etc, but the point everyone seems to be missing is that history shows that every time the manufacturers have increased the pixel count on any sensor they have also increased dynamic range and reduced noise. They have made a better sensor overall.

The EM-1 sensor is miles better than the EP-1 sensor and is a match for my old Sony A-900 full frame but it is not as good as my more modern D800 full frame. That’s just how sensors evolve.

Best regards,

Howard

Agreed wholeheartly...

light_bulb · Apr 17, 2015

DonParrot said:
It's funny.
In the automotive world, you have to buy a Bugatti if you want a 1000bhp production car. And you have to pay the price. The others opt for the more reasonable choices and are happy with it.
In the photographic world, marketing tries to hoax us into the idea that we all need the 1000bhp engine and that we all should pay the price. And unfortunately, this marketing works and quite a number of those who are well skilled are trapped and spread the multi-MP necessity around the world.
Well, I'm asking myself if they already have thrown all their pictures shot in the past decade with their oh so with insufficient equipment into the bin?
As I see it, this entire Multi-MP race is absolute ridiculous. Just as 4K or 8K TVs are. You really should try to get of the marketing's hook.

Olympus resolution and sensor future ?

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Tom Ames

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

junk1

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

junk1

Guest

junk1

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts