Olympus resolution and sensor future ?

cainn24 said:

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?

Click to expand...

The issue is that this louder and louder call for more MPs arguably will result in the fact that there won't be any cameras with a reasoable pixel count in the near future as even the manufacturers that are - correctly - of the opinion that increasing the pixel count isn't necessary won't be able to sell cameras with these sensors, any longer. And that's why I've got the feeling that you high-MP fans are imposing your point of view on on the rest of us.

No matter if this is your goal or it isn't.

Great Bustard said:

call me Skippy said:

Concerning the original question: Didnt the 4/3-rumor website recently report something about a new mft-sensor going beyond 16? Whatever: I dont really care for four or even eight MP extra. Would be nice - but dont really need it. It was the same with the jump from 12 to 16MP: Wasnt a reason to buy the OMD. Noise and dynamic range were. If the em5 mark II offered more pixels, I would still long more for the faster shutter speed, flippy-thingie-screen, focus peeking etc. than the pixels... Additionally, the "bumps" get smaller in relation to what I already have and the jump from 12 to 16 - though noticeable - was already not as fullfilling as I imagined...

Click to expand...

All sorts of things would be more important than, say, a 6% average resolution increase.

Click to expand...

It is probably worth noting that the resolution increase was actually more significant in the case of 12mp -> 16mp bump (~15%) than with the suggested 16mp -> 20mp increase (~11%).

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

cainn24 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Because this new round in the MP race will result in a market where finding cameras with - let's say - a 16MP FT sensor will be virtually impossible.
Bad enough that all the stills shooters have to pay for the video developments and in this situation, we also are supposed to pay for the multi-MP sensor plus the necessary infrastructure. I really don't want that.

Hi Don,

Whilst I cannot personally confirm the noise performance of the E-30 sensor over the EM-1 sensor all the test reports, where a comparison is available, show that the E-30 has slightly poorer noise performance than the EM-1. The E-30 definitely has less colour bit depth and less DR than the EM-1. So, yes, I would say the EM-1 has a better sensor.

As for manufacturers pandering to the Multi-MP disciples… well I simply don’t see it that way. I think it down to competition pure and simple. If a manufacture could produce a camera that sold a sustained number of units per year without updating them then they would. A business has to make profit and the only way to do that is to introduce new products with improved specs that may include a higher pixel count. The real disaster would be if Olympus stuck to selling the same camera /sensor year after year as they would go out of business very quickly… they are barely surviving as it is.

The bottom line is that no one forces anyone to buy a camera with a higher pixel count. You can always stick to the one you currently own which is what I did with the Sony A-900 until the D800 came out…… a camera with a higher pixel count that beats the A-900 sensor in every area.

Best regards,

Howard

DonParrot said:

The issue is that this louder and louder call for more MPs arguably will result in the fact that there won't be any cameras with a reasoable pixel count in the near future as even the manufacturers that are - correctly - of the opinion that increasing the pixel count isn't necessary won't be able to sell cameras with these sensors, any longer. And that's why I've got the feeling that you high-MP fans are imposing your point of view on on the rest of us.

No matter if this is your goal or it isn't.

Click to expand...

If the mere act of expressing a preference means I am imposing my point of view on others by virtue of somehow "encouraging" manufacturers to increase sensor resolution, which is something that some people don't want, then the mere act of expressing your own preference on the matter constitutes the exact same thing since your own logic permits me to suggest that you might somehow be encouraging manufacturers not to increase sensor resolution, which is something that some people don't want.I think that's all a bit silly to be honest.

DonParrot said:

cainn24 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Because this new round in the MP race will result in a market where finding cameras with - let's say - a 16MP FT sensor will be virtually impossible.
Bad enough that all the stills shooters have to pay for the video developments and in this situation, we also are supposed to pay for the multi-MP sensor plus the necessary infrastructure. I really don't want that.

Click to expand...

So why not just stick with an existing 16MP body? And what would be the big problem with a resolution increase anyway if it also brought an improvement in SNR and dynamic range, which it likely would? That's what most people who want more resolution are actually advocating for anyway (or at the very least the absence of any backward steps in such respects).

I just don't see the downside really. What is it?

HL53 said:

Hi Don,

Whilst I cannot personally confirm the noise performance of the E-30 sensor over the EM-1 sensor all the test reports, where a comparison is available, show that the E-30 has slightly poorer noise performance than the EM-1. The E-30 definitely has less colour bit depth and less DR than the EM-1. So, yes, I would say the EM-1 has a better sensor.

Click to expand...

Hi Howard, you are right, the 16MP FT sensors - no matter if supplied by Sony or Panny - are nbertter than there 12MP predecessors. But at base ISO, the 12MP Panny sensor still outperforms them, noise-wise. That's the price we had to pay for the better high-ISO performance.

HL53 said:

The bottom line is that no one forces anyone to buy a camera with a higher pixel count. You can always stick to the one you currently own which is what I did with the Sony A-900 until the D800 came out…… a camera with a higher pixel count that beats the A-900 sensor in every area.

Click to expand...

Yes, I will be forced to do so as the CSCs still are being debvelopped and increased in many ares. I definitely would love another C-AF improvement and live-view in the H-mode C-AF and I fear that I only will get this in the E-M1 MKII only with 20 or 24 MPs. What will be a pain in my derriere.

Manti44 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Was he really complaining though? Seems to me like he just pointed out a few facts and wanted to get some perspective on how probable it was that MFT would get a resolution bump any time soon.

Of course the answer is that rumours aside nobody really knows.

DonParrot said:

HL53 said:

Hi Don,

Whilst I cannot personally confirm the noise performance of the E-30 sensor over the EM-1 sensor all the test reports, where a comparison is available, show that the E-30 has slightly poorer noise performance than the EM-1. The E-30 definitely has less colour bit depth and less DR than the EM-1. So, yes, I would say the EM-1 has a better sensor.

Click to expand...

Hi Howard, you are right, the 16MP FT sensors - no matter if supplied by Sony or Panny - are nbertter than there 12MP predecessors. But at base ISO, the 12MP Panny sensor still outperforms them, noise-wise. That's the price we had to pay for the better high-ISO performance.

Click to expand...

Which 12MP sensor? Certainly not this one: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...-GH4-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH1___943_630

Which one?

Jim Salvas said:

I'd like to see Olympus take the route of Nikon and Sony in providing distinct higher resolution and higher DR/lower resolution models. It would be nice to choose between an Olympus 12mp model with very high DR/high ISO capability and a 20-24mp model with modest DR, but good base ISO capability.

Frankly, I find myself wishing for the high DR more.

Click to expand...

I think that something like this would keep the greatest number of people happy, but I also think that the pixel counts need to get pretty far apart for there to be any real differentiation.