Reading mode: Light Dark

Olympus resolution and sensor future ?

Go to last post
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...

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...
Click to expand...
Wow, all I can say is wow. You must be one of the 0.0001% for whom those extra megapixels actually matter. What I wonder is why you got into this format in the first place? If extracting maximum detail from every image is the objective, wouldn't you have been better served with a FF or MF camera in the first place?

I'd also wager that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 16Mp and 24MP image unless you're pixel-peeping. If you print--zero perceptible difference. But this, apparently, would be enough to drive you to a completely different system?

Like I said, wow.
 
DonParrot said:
Wrong. The marketing has realised that a new round of the pixel race is the easiest way to make people believe that their current gear is not good enough anymore. And with people like you following their bait uncritically, Olympus will be forced to once again increase the MP count although nearly nobody needs it. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
This! Exactly
 
Colin K. Work said:
Tom Caldwell said:
ttan98 said:
Guy Parsons said:
gilo212 said:
Dear fellow M4/3 lovers,

Me, like you, loves the system a lot. I actually born into it and started my photography 3 years ago into the first em5. Now upgraded to the mkii.We all know how using olympus system is a lot of fun, and the quality is good too.

But recently in the appearing of new mirrorless cameras, like the NX1, the question of resolution is raised up again.When already few alternatives that offers better image quality are available i would like to ask those that knows and understand the physics behind and the probability of olympus coming in the future with a better resolution camera? Is it even possible with the current PRO lenses that is already exist?

Its no doubt that the glass available is the most diverse and top notch, but if olympus is not coming in the near future with a better sensor and resolution, its just clearly stays behind... and for professional purposes better alternatives are already there...

Thanks for those that can shed some light on the issue,
Gil.
Click to expand...
The first question is - why do you need more than 16MP?

Regards...... Guy
Click to expand...
You are an engineer you should know, it's the nature of the technology, you can't avoid or stop it. In the not distance you will be shooting real 24 then 36Mp images in m4/3. You will be still around then and If you don't like it don't buy it. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
The world needs optimists with the firm strength strength of their convictions. Columbus sailed forever westward completely sure that he would find something. What he found was not what he sought but was deemed worthwhile in any case (at least by some). He came back. Pessimists sayed at home and waited. Who was the more rational? Um ... he didn't find a quick route to the spice trade, nor did he sail off the edge, and the pessimists found alternative uses for what he found. It must have sold a thousand new ships.

So if more megapixels happen in one form or another then the pessimists will find a use for them meanwhile they are quite happy to entertain those who think that the world is not flat and happily till their present fields with what they already have.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
cainn24 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Good point, but isn't this the same as sensor cropping zoom, but only on a temporary inspection basis?
cainn24 said:
Richard Feynman said it best in my opinion:
cainn24 said:
and perhaps only the best (most expensive) lenses are capable of making full use of them anyway.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I guess greater sensor populations will come but whether there are that many people (such as yourself) that need the extra pixels is a more moot point. A long as there are enough that think they do demand will exceed supply.

But in the end perhaps pixel denisity-excess revulsion will set in just as it did for the tiny sensors.
 
TheEngineer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow! 120,000 pics in less than 18 months. I really am asking myself when you found the time for all your pixel peeping.
 
cainn24 said:
DonParrot said:
cainn24 said:
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
Click to expand...
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:
cainn24 said:
and perhaps only the best (most expensive) lenses are capable of making full use of them anyway.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What can I say but "Let's agree to disagree."

For me, creating a picture means creating a picture as a whole.That's so far from your approach that I just can't understand the pleasure you get by tearing a pic apart into its details.

It's like looking at the brush marks of the great masters such as da Vinci or Michelangelo instead of admiring their works as a whole. I would see the need if you were studying art but not if you want to enjoy whart they did.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said at all.

I suspect that you either didn't watch that little video I linked to, or didn't understand the point that Feynman was making about the appreciation of beauty.

By way of further illustration: I like birds. In fact I love birds. In my opinion they are some of the most fascinating and wondrous creatures on Earth. And when I take a picture of a bird I subsequently derive all sorts of enjoyment from looking at it. But not only do I enjoy the picture as a whole, I enjoy all the little details too. The feathers, the eyes, the beak, the little legs and the little feet. They are cute, interesting, even incredible. But that is not to say that the individual details are the whole point. They are not. If they were I would spend all my time trying to photograph parts of birds instead of whole birds. But I don't. There is the bird, frozen in time, hopefully framed nicely with some interesting context, and the details are simply an additional dimension of appreciation. And the better they look the richer the little universe within that moment of time becomes to me.

As Feynman said: "It's only adds. I don't see how it subtracts".

Tearing my pictures apart? You couldn't be more wrong.
cainn24 said:
So, we seem to be just to far away from one another for a fruitful discussions.
Click to expand...
Actually I think that discussions like this could indeed be fruitful if people put a little bit more effort into trying to think outside their own subjective little worlds. This idea that people either don't care about resolution or are obsessive pixel-peepers who are acting in opposition to the enjoyment of photography is beyond ridiculous.

Really, it is.
Click to expand...
Your point is well made, but I think what you are doing is exactly what I said that sensor cropping zoom does. Only that you are using this feature to examine parts of the image. If you had a mind to do so you could print various parts of the same image with good fidelity.

Extra resolution could replace zoom lenses with high perfoming fast primes if only the camera buying public could get their head around rejecting the mantra that they must always use all the extra pixels provided no matter how many. When in truth the computer screen or printer throws them away in due course. In practice a 16mp image cropped to 8mp or even 4mp still can produce a fine print if well caught in the first place. This means that high resolution lenses used constructively with some precision are more essential than huge numbers of pixels. 16mp already gives us quite good scope.

The chant that more megapixels are good is a sort of albatross that the sensor manufacturers and their acolyte camera manufacturers have created. Now somehow they have to change tack and start promoting: "great prime lenses and sensor cropped images are fantastic".
 
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.
Click to expand...
Or did they. My old E-30 definitely does clearly better when it comes to low-ISO noise than my E-M5, E-M1 and GH4.
HL53 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes they will do - as long as this helps them to sell you new gear. And if a manifavcturer like olympus says "we don't want this", the Multi-MP disciples bash them until they have no other choice than following this route. What a disaster.
 
cainn24 said:
Great Bustard said:
cainn24 said:
junk1 said:
I thought about it more, and since the 40MP image is created by shifting the sensor by 1/2 pixel (right?), and clearly is a tad better even when down sampled, I think that probably does prove the lens is sharper than 16MP and that a higher resolution sensor (unless it was very noisy) would result in a sharper output image.

That's always the case though isn't it? Even a mediocre lens will produce a little bit more true resolution if used on a newer higher res camera.
Click to expand...
Technically it is indeed always the case, so the experts say. I certainly believe them. But in my opinion (and I suspect you will agree) sometimes it is only technically the case (in the sense that while some resolution plot produced by lab testing might indicate a difference, that difference might not always be something that is visually apparent even to the most discerning folks).

In any case we can pull examples from the DPR studio tool or Imaging Resource (and a few other places) involving cameras with different pixel counts shot from behind the same lens at the same fnumber and focal length. The D810 vs D4s is one such example, and here it is:

16MP D4s left, 36MP D810 right (downsampled to match the D4s), both shot with the 85mm 1.4 @ f/5.6

16MP D4s left, 36MP D810 right (downsampled to match the D4s), both shot with the 85mm 1.4 @ f/5.6
Click to expand...
Well if you downsample the 36 MP D810 photo to the 16 MP of the D4s, of course you're not going to see a big increase in resolution as the downsampling, of course, throws away the bulk of the resolution increase that the greater pixel count gives. I'd have taken that to be so obvious as to not be worth pointing out.
Click to expand...
The reason that I come at it from this direction sometimes is that if you go the other way (upsample the lower resolution capture) people often complain that if the real-world applicability of the difference wasn't dubious already, it becomes so then, since most people are never going to upsample like that.
Click to expand...
The thing is, however, is that unless you are displaying 100% crops on a computer monitor, you are upsampling or downsampling, either by your own hand or involuntarily.
cainn24 said:
And if you mention cropping, people will say "get closer" or "get a longer lens" or "I don't need to" or whatever. So I sometimes find it useful to point out that if people don't want more pixels, maybe they might want better pixels instead. And in my opinion the difference in favour of the D810 in this case remains clear to me even when both images are downsampled to 8MP. Even 5MP. And now we're in "good size for displaying at 1:1 on a 4K monitor" territory and in my opinion it's even a good size for a 1080p display if you're a fan of taking a closer look without having noise and/or lens aberrations in your face.
Click to expand...
Yes.
cainn24 said:
Maybe not such a problem with a FF camera and a good prime but in my own mind at least I tend to relate this all to my own cameras and usage scenarios.
Click to expand...
Sure.
cainn24 said:
cainn24 said:
Sure. As I said, at most you'd get a 12% resolution increase from 16 MP to 20 MP. Some people, like this guy, won't see any resolution increase at all.
Click to expand...
I didn't post in that thread but I did get quite a shock when I perused his gear list and noticed all the expensive primes. I mean you would think that photography would be a much cheaper endeavour if f/22 on MFT was sharp enough for your needs. Anyway, what do I know? I only have one prime and I rarely use it.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's amazing, if not amusing, how much some will fret over the sharpness of a lens and then use it in a manner that completely render that sharpness useless compared to significantly smaller, lighter, and less expensive options.
 
Tom Caldwell said:
cainn24 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Good point, but isn't this the same as sensor cropping zoom, but only on a temporary inspection basis?
Click to expand...
Not the way I meant it. I hate cropping and would rather stalk a bird (or whatever) for twice as long so I don't have to.

I don't own a single camera that puts out images that I like to view at the native sensor resolution so I always downsample. For me it's basically just a way of exercising some control over what the image looks like after that single click that takes you to 100% for a closer look. Currently with MFT in particular once we get down to about 8MP or so things are starting to look nice to me. And generally speaking the more resolution you start out with the sooner that happens.

In other words it's not so much about more pixels as it is about better pixels. But it is about more pixels in the sense that more pixels can give you those better pixels, and better pixels give you better images.
Tom Caldwell said:
But in the end perhaps pixel denisity-excess revulsion will set in just as it did for the tiny sensors.
Click to expand...
There's really no justification for pixel density revulsion even on tiny sensors as even in that arena you can still end up with more detail and this perception that noise gets out of control is mostly due to the same old folly of comparing sensors with different resolutions at the pixel level instead of at the same print/display size.

Sure, people can point to instances of higher resolution sensors being noisier than lower resolution sensors even under normalized conditions but there are also examples where the reverse is true. So I think people generally need to develop a more balanced perspective on it all so that they aren't inadvertently demonizing something that might actually be of benefit to them.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/37409155
 
Last edited:
Tom Caldwell said:
cainn24 said:
DonParrot said:
cainn24 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What can I say but "Let's agree to disagree."

For me, creating a picture means creating a picture as a whole.That's so far from your approach that I just can't understand the pleasure you get by tearing a pic apart into its details.

It's like looking at the brush marks of the great masters such as da Vinci or Michelangelo instead of admiring their works as a whole. I would see the need if you were studying art but not if you want to enjoy whart they did.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said at all.

I suspect that you either didn't watch that little video I linked to, or didn't understand the point that Feynman was making about the appreciation of beauty.

By way of further illustration: I like birds. In fact I love birds. In my opinion they are some of the most fascinating and wondrous creatures on Earth. And when I take a picture of a bird I subsequently derive all sorts of enjoyment from looking at it. But not only do I enjoy the picture as a whole, I enjoy all the little details too. The feathers, the eyes, the beak, the little legs and the little feet. They are cute, interesting, even incredible. But that is not to say that the individual details are the whole point. They are not. If they were I would spend all my time trying to photograph parts of birds instead of whole birds. But I don't. There is the bird, frozen in time, hopefully framed nicely with some interesting context, and the details are simply an additional dimension of appreciation. And the better they look the richer the little universe within that moment of time becomes to me.

As Feynman said: "It's only adds. I don't see how it subtracts".

Tearing my pictures apart? You couldn't be more wrong.
Tom Caldwell said:
So, we seem to be just to far away from one another for a fruitful discussions.
Click to expand...
Actually I think that discussions like this could indeed be fruitful if people put a little bit more effort into trying to think outside their own subjective little worlds. This idea that people either don't care about resolution or are obsessive pixel-peepers who are acting in opposition to the enjoyment of photography is beyond ridiculous.

Really, it is.
Click to expand...
Your point is well made, but I think what you are doing is exactly what I said that sensor cropping zoom does. Only that you are using this feature to examine parts of the image. If you had a mind to do so you could print various parts of the same image with good fidelity.
Click to expand...
Not quite. I've elaborated in my other reply to you.
Tom Caldwell said:
Extra resolution could replace zoom lenses with high perfoming fast primes if only the camera buying public could get their head around rejecting the mantra that they must always use all the extra pixels provided no matter how many. When in truth the computer screen or printer throws them away in due course. In practice a 16mp image cropped to 8mp or even 4mp still can produce a fine print if well caught in the first place. This means that high resolution lenses used constructively with some precision are more essential than huge numbers of pixels. 16mp already gives us quite good scope.

The chant that more megapixels are good is a sort of albatross that the sensor manufacturers and their acolyte camera manufacturers have created. Now somehow they have to change tack and start promoting: "great prime lenses and sensor cropped images are fantastic".
Click to expand...
This logic isn't really tracking well for me as I really don't see the point of swapping a zoom lens for a prime with less reach and then having to crop to match the zoom all the time. If you didn't need to crop all the time it wouldn't be so bad but sometimes you buy a zoom with a certain amount of reach because that's what you need to have in order to do what you want to do.

In fact after that I'm not really sure where you stand to be honest. Are you advocating for more resolution (since as you say more resolution + a prime can be a good combination) or are you against it (since you also seems to be saying that rising pixel counts somehow run counter to what we should be focusing on instead, which is lens performance).

I am all for sharper lenses. Give me a sharper 300mm solution than my existing 75-300 II that isn't huge and I'll be all over it. But whether I can have that or not, or make a short prime + cropping solution work for me or not, more resolution can help.
 
Last edited:
cainn24 said:
Tom Caldwell said:
cainn24 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Good point, but isn't this the same as sensor cropping zoom, but only on a temporary inspection basis?
Click to expand...
Not the way I meant it. I hate cropping and would rather stalk a bird (or whatever) for twice as long so I don't have to.

I don't own a single camera that puts out images that I like to view at the native sensor resolution so I always downsample. For me it's basically just a way of exercising some control over what the image looks like after that single click that takes you to 100% for a closer look. Currently with MFT in particular once we get down to about 8MP or so things are starting to look nice to me. And generally speaking the more resolution you start out with the sooner that happens.

In other words it's not so much about more pixels as it is about better pixels. But it is about more pixels in the sense that more pixels can give you those better pixels, and better pixels give you better images.
cainn24 said:
But in the end perhaps pixel denisity-excess revulsion will set in just as it did for the tiny sensors.
Click to expand...
There's really no justification for pixel density revulsion even on tiny sensors as even in that arena you can still end up with more detail and this perception that noise gets out of control is mostly due to the same old folly of comparing sensors with different resolutions at the pixel level instead of at the same print/display size.

Sure, people can point to instances of higher resolution sensors being noisier than lower resolution sensors even under normalized conditions but there are also examples where the reverse is true. So I think people generally need to develop a more balanced perspective on it all so that they aren't inadvertently demonizing something that might actually be of benefit to them.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/37409155
Click to expand...
I don't think we really disagree we are just expressing variations on a theme. There is no problem with the concept of enlarging a screen to reveal detail any more than there is in using a part of a cropped image similarly as an alternative to zooming.

If we follow the micro sensor trend in densely populating sensors then why stop at a mere 20mp? Maybe we should be arguing for 50+mp now or bust.

Although if a 20mp sensor does appear then soon enough we will be angling for 24mp and so on infinatum. Somewhere between logical progression and a thirst for anything new must be better.

Bigger V8 engine give more glorious torque but even small V8 engines cruise quite happily at the speed limits. This is an observation for the many and not a disagreement with your personal need.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Hello Great. I think the statement that Olympus made was some time ago and they said 12MP was enough.

But be that as it may, I have 2 cameras with a 1" sensor and I must say I am quite impressed with the image quality from those sensors. It is much better than I was expecting. The BIG problem is that the cameras are no smaller than a PEN or GX/GF.

While 16MP is no doubt more than sufficient for the vast majority of users, and even exceeds what 35mm film was capable of, I think MFT does need to progress megapixel wise, if only to try and maintain a competitive edge against APS.

Sony now has 20MP 4/3 sensors, so I fully expect to see that sensor show up in a future MFT body. Personally, I think both Olympus and Panasonic need at least one body with a sensor in excess of 20MP just to remain competitive.

I would also like to see a 12MP GH5. :-P
 
cainn24 said:
DonParrot said:
What can I say but "Let's agree to disagree."

For me, creating a picture means creating a picture as a whole.That's so far from your approach that I just can't understand the pleasure you get by tearing a pic apart into its details.

It's like looking at the brush marks of the great masters such as da Vinci or Michelangelo instead of admiring their works as a whole. I would see the need if you were studying art but not if you want to enjoy whart they did.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said at all.

I suspect that you either didn't watch that little video I linked to, or didn't understand the point that Feynman was making about the appreciation of beauty.

By way of further illustration: I like birds. In fact I love birds. In my opinion they are some of the most fascinating and wondrous creatures on Earth. And when I take a picture of a bird I subsequently derive all sorts of enjoyment from looking at it. But not only do I enjoy the picture as a whole, I enjoy all the little details too. The feathers, the eyes, the beak, the little legs and the little feet. They are cute, interesting, even incredible. But that is not to say that the individual details are the whole point. They are not. If they were I would spend all my time trying to photograph parts of birds instead of whole birds. But I don't. There is the bird, frozen in time, hopefully framed nicely with some interesting context, and the details are simply an additional dimension of appreciation. And the better they look the richer the little universe within that moment of time becomes to me.

As Feynman said: "It's only adds. I don't see how it subtracts".

Tearing my pictures apart? You couldn't be more wrong.
cainn24 said:
So, we seem to be just to far away from one another for a fruitful discussions.
Click to expand...
Actually I think that discussions like this could indeed be fruitful if people put a little bit more effort into trying to think outside their own subjective little worlds. This idea that people either don't care about resolution or are obsessive pixel-peepers who are acting in opposition to the enjoyment of photography is beyond ridiculous.

Really, it is.
Click to expand...
No need to get offensive. You have your way of looking at pictures, I've got mine. Nonetheless, if I look ast a 10 or 12MP pic shot with a good lens from the right viewing distance, I get all the details I want. Even my E-30 with its thick AA filter delivered details galore. Only if you get so close to your pic that you aren't seeing it as a whole, anymore, you will have problems with he rersolution and the sharpness. If this is you approch - fine. But imposing this point of view to the rest of the world reminds me of a hostile takeover.
And I watched the video but in my eyes it's nonsense. FOR ME, that is.
So I say it once again: Let's agree to disagree as I don't have the slightest understanding for your point of view. For me it remains tearing the pics apart and I haven't got any interest whatsoever in doing so.
But then, if you enjoy it, who am I to critivise you?
 
Tom Caldwell said:
Bigger V8 engine give more glorious torque but even small V8 engines cruise quite happily at the speed limits. This is an observation for the many and not a disagreement with your personal need.
Click to expand...
For the record it's more like a preference than a need really. I mean if I couldn't have more resolution I'd still enjoy photography. In fact if the only camera I could ever have was my old 2MP Coolpix E2100 with its 1/3.2"-type sensor I could still enjoy photography. That was the first digital camera I ever owned and I had quite a bit of fun with it. And I could again.

For people like me, who aren't professionals, photography is just like any other hobby. Aside from additionally being interested in the technical side of things (which sometimes leads me into serious-looking discussions) it's ultimately all about having fun. So wanting more resolution is kinda like wanting better strings for a guitar so I can get a slightly better sound when I'm jamming with some friends, or wanting the latest set of themed Bicycle playing cards for the next poker night just for a bit of variety, or wanting a fancy temperature-controlled soldiering iron to help me in my tinkering efforts even though I don't strictly need one. None of this is life and death. It's not a "make it or break it" type deal. It's just a hobby. So I say bring on the higher specs, the bells and the whistles, the style, the class... whatever. It all adds to the fun for me.

I guess it's just a shame that in the process of advocating for such things that many of us end up having to justify ourselves in response to questions like "well, why do you need new guitar strings?".

Again, just for the record: I don't.

OK everyone?

But why do people seem to want to make me feel bad about wanting them?
 
Last edited:
cainn24 said:
But why do people seem to want to make me feel bad about wanting them?
Click to expand...
Because the result will be that they also have to buy it, if they want or not. As there won't be any cameras with lower pixel count available.

Therefore, Oly's (Hasselblad's) high-res mode is the perfect solution, if it really can be used handheld as it has been announced for the E-M1 MKII. A moderate MP sensor for everybody and a higher pixel count if the user needs it. It couldn't come any better.
 
DonParrot said:
No need to get offensive. You have your way of looking at pictures, I've got mine. Nonetheless, if I look ast a 10 or 12MP pic shot with a good lens from the right viewing distance, I get all the details I want. Even my E-30 with its thick AA filter delivered details galore. Only if you get so close to your pic that you aren't seeing it as a whole, anymore, you will have problems with he rersolution and the sharpness. If this is you approch - fine. But imposing this point of view to the rest of the world reminds me of a hostile takeover.
Click to expand...
Hold on a minute. I'm not imposing my view on anyone. I'm not telling you that you need more resolution. I am simply expressing my own preference for more, and responding to comments that either constitute claims about how it is generally not even possible in the first place and/or that there's something wrong with my photographic sensibilities for having that preference.

So what's the real issue here? Do you think wanting more resolution is being elitist somehow? Do you feel that it constitutes some sort of judgement regarding your own preferences?

I can assure you that it is not my intention to express either of these sentiments, nor do I carry them.
DonParrot said:
But then, if you enjoy it, who am I to critivise you?
Click to expand...
That's the spirit.
 
gilo212 said:
Dear fellow M4/3 lovers,

Me, like you, loves the system a lot. I actually born into it and started my photography 3 years ago into the first em5. Now upgraded to the mkii.We all know how using olympus system is a lot of fun, and the quality is good too.

But recently in the appearing of new mirrorless cameras, like the NX1, the question of resolution is raised up again.When already few alternatives that offers better image quality are available i would like to ask those that knows and understand the physics behind and the probability of olympus coming in the future with a better resolution camera? Is it even possible with the current PRO lenses that is already exist?

Its no doubt that the glass available is the most diverse and top notch, but if olympus is not coming in the near future with a better sensor and resolution, its just clearly stays behind... and for professional purposes better alternatives are already there...

Thanks for those that can shed some light on the issue,
Gil.
Click to expand...
Now you might have your well thought out points for requesting a higher pixel count. At the moment Ì´m relatively new to the MFT System, but what I found out during the last two weeks I have my E-M10 is that we really would need some better lenses in the affordable range. At the moment I´ve got the kit lenses 14-42 / f 3.5-5.6 II R and the 40-150 / f 4-5.6 (which are not bad within the given limits), the 17 / f 2,8 which is lousy compared to the 45 / f 1.8 and the PL 25 / f 1.4 I bought last week. If you want an acceptable zoom with reasonable CA you have to pay a big hole in your budget. Even the very good 45 / f1,8 can´t make the most out of the current sensor. There is still room for improvement.

So before asking for more MPx I would like to see some better zoom lenses at a medium range of bucks, sub $900,- USD and with CA correction to less than 3 pixels.

Rudi.
 
Last edited:
DonParrot said:
cainn24 said:
But why do people seem to want to make me feel bad about wanting them?
Click to expand...
Because the result will be that they also have to buy it, if they want or not. As there won't be any cameras with lower pixel count available.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that even though you don't need or even want more resolution, you would somehow be forced to purchase a higher resolution camera anyway? Why?
 
Sell your stuff and buy Nikon or Canon. This is not rocket science, you bought a cheaper, smaller lighter system and now you are not happy. Don't complain to those of us who went in to m43 with our eyes open, just cut your looses and get out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Asherax
  • User review User review
Olympus C-210 1.9x TC
Replies
2
Views
17K
Asherax
Asherax
M
From the past, to the future.
Replies
12
Views
9K
Tom Caldwell
T
bluevellet
  • User review User review
The Little Engine That Could
Replies
14
Views
64K
Isola Verde
Isola Verde
P
  • Locked
Should Panasonic produce Rangefinder Style APS-C cameras and AI designed APS-C lenses for L-mount?
Replies
7
Views
28K
Photongraphy
P
B
Worth a Switch from Fuji X-T4 to Micro Four Thirds for more affordable Wildlife Photography?
Replies
7
Views
16K
luxborealis
luxborealis

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top