Reading mode: Light Dark

20 versus 16mp on m4/3rds? Nothing really to jump at

Go to last post
It's always the same procedure. People trying to justify their own gear. Same as when the first Panasonic 16MP cameras came out (GH2 for example).

If it doesn't have 20MP now, it does not need it ! But once it has 20MP, 16MP will be far too low...
 
nzmacro said:
Its progress and obviously some don't like it or need it .... according to them ;-) Lets see what they are using in 5 years time shall we.
Click to expand...
Shall we? Keep in mind that in 2010, digital cameras weren't mature, especially in M4/3.

To wit: The jump from 12mp to 16mp wasn't notable because of an increase of detail, especially at low ISOs. It was notable because it had better DR and low-light performance, and because it operates faster.

Going from 16mp to 20mp is not a big deal. In terms of detail, it's barely noticeable. DR is reportedly around 1/3 EV, which is really not much. AFAIK, its real advantage is that it operates faster, e.g. better video, less rolling shutter. It's a tiny step, and this shows us how sensors are essentially mature.
nzmacro said:
What they do is small increments at a time....
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much. In the early days it was leaps and bounds. Now, it's years between small differences.
nzmacro said:
If it didn't work this way we would still be looking at 2-4mp. I ain't going back and there is only one way, progressively forward.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. Do you know the processor speed of your computer? How about your phone? ;)

As the tech matures, marketing points like "megapixel counts" become less important. Hence the big slowdown in ILC sales. Why buy a camera every year, when this year's model offers so few improvements?

 
kenw said:
RichRMA said:
If it takes an OTUS to extract the best from a "lowly" 36mp sensor, then for sure the HR mode is pushing some lenses.

If you carefully process and compare the HR images with other cameras with higher megapixel counts and larger sensors, it is hovering around 42-50mp in-terms of its actual resolving power. Not the "under 36" that some reviewers claim. It is clearly higher when the images are properly processed than Nikon's D810 sensor. Slightly lower than Canon's 50mp sensor though because all things being equal, a FF sensor with the same pixel count will usually out-resolve a smaller sensor.
Click to expand...
One thing to be aware of when comparing resolution of the High Res mode to native imagers is that the native imagers have a square (i.e. horizontal/vertical) sampling grid while the High Res mode is a diagonal grid. This means that when evaluating horizontal and vertical detail or resolution charts the high res mode will appear to test even higher than one would expect. This is the same trick that Fuji ran years ago with their diagonally arranged sensors which they would then produce an upsampled JPEG from.

In a typical square grid arrangement the diagonal resolving power is higher than the horizontal or vertical. When you use a diagonal grid that is reversed which can cause some confusion when making direct comparisons.

Of course one true advantage of the High Res mode is no color moire.

--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list
Click to expand...
Interesting topic; not sure what the right answer is.

I'm not sure that a sensor shifted 40MP image requires the same resolving power from the lens as would be required from a 40MP bayer grid. The pixel pitch for one will be larger on the 16MP sensor, so in that sense, perhaps it is not as taxing of the lens design. On the other side, the sensor shifted result for stationary subjects is indeed quite good and appears to draw comparable resolution to systems with native bayer grids.

Olympus is using a lot of shifts to make that image though - 8 frames total - so it isn't just the diagonal space that's being filled, they're also sampling RGB at each pixel location. Can't see why this wouldn't be a great file for stationary subjects like architecture and macro.

I would be really interested to see someone try a single shift multi-exposure implementation. It might be just be possible to do this fast enough to allow hand held exposures of some moving subjects at normal shutter speeds. This wouldn't produce either full RGB data, or an additional matrix of spatially arrayed pixels, but it would give "Green" luminance values at every pixel. Essentially producing a mosaic of green-blue and green-red pixels. I imagine that wouldn't be too unlike current iterations of foveon colour output in that only one "layer" has full spatial information - the current foveon still manages to get colour at every location.
 
dv312 said:
"A lot of people are getting hung up on the 20mp aspect of the camera. While I always welcome a new sensor, given that sensors in general tend to make substantive improvements about every three years, note that this just nets you a 13% resolution gain, generally not enough to be visible to most people."

But hopefully there's some improvement in DR

Cheers,
Click to expand...
Panasonic claims 1/3 stop improvement, which is rather minor IMO.
 
RichRMA said:
This is 20 versus 16mp, the linear resolution difference, about 12.2%. 20 on the left, 16 on the right. The difference is visible, but minor.

8322de8a54794ecba93f51dc4120b64b.jpg
Click to expand...
Agree, little progress. But still progress. DR improved - only a little but still progress. I wonder how ISO performance of the new sensor will be.

Thinking about it ... the most radical step recently was the one Canon made from 22MP in the 5DIII to 50MP. Sony increased pixel count from 36MP to 42MP. In percent that is a smaller step than 16MP to 20MP. But Sony did some major changes in sensor technology that should help efficiency. They also made major progress in OSPDAF. So progress is not always measured in higher resolution.

Maybe there is a level of maturity in sensors that means that progress is still there but there are no big jumps. Not bad - you can focus on taking pictures without having to be worried every day that your equipment is outdated :)
 
RichRMA said:
TN Args said:
RichRMA said:
TN Args said:
Martin Ocando said:
In my particular case, in which most of my subjects are steady, I'm more drawn to the high rez mode of the E-M5 Mark II, than this 20MP sensor. Is always good, and every little bit helps, but I prefer the Olympus approach.

Not that eventually we will have much higher resolution sensors in all our m43 models, but for the moment, is not that high a jump. And there is also the low light performance, which we haven't seen yet how it performs.
Click to expand...
It's normal sensor evolution, which we should gratefully accept and move on without complaining that it isn't a massive new invention that turns all tables on their heads.

If they increase the pixel count and at the same time increase the quality per pixel, even small amounts, that's a double gain or win-win, and that's what Panasonic are offering here. Well done lads!
Click to expand...
They could load 100mp onto a m4/3 sensor tomorrow. They "trickle out" technology to maximized sales, it has nothing to do with what they are capable of at the moment.
Click to expand...
Our friendly conspiracy theorist has outed himself. :-D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Strick Shooter said:
My point is simply that more is not better just because it is more. I would rather have a vastly improved sensor in DR and high ISO. Once that is obtained then I don't care if it is more or less pixels. And sure increases have been made since digital arrived and mostly because people believe they need it when in actuality they don't.

I just look at Sony for my point, I would take an A7s at a "measly" 12mp over a 7rII. Wonder why they only put 12mp on such a new camera.......I wonder.
Click to expand...
 
SpinOne said:
nzmacro said:
Its progress and obviously some don't like it or need it .... according to them ;-) Lets see what they are using in 5 years time shall we.
Click to expand...
Shall we? Keep in mind that in 2010, digital cameras weren't mature, especially in M4/3.
Click to expand...
First digital camera I got was in 1999, so been all through that.
SpinOne said:
To wit: The jump from 12mp to 16mp wasn't notable because of an increase of detail, especially at low ISOs. It was notable because it had better DR and low-light performance, and because it operates faster.
Click to expand...
For you that would be important. We need different boxes obviously.
SpinOne said:
Going from 16mp to 20mp is not a big deal. In terms of detail, it's barely noticeable. DR is reportedly around 1/3 EV, which is really not much. AFAIK, its real advantage is that it operates faster, e.g. better video, less rolling shutter. It's a tiny step, and this shows us how sensors are essentially mature.
Click to expand...
Going back from 16mp to 12mp is not a big deal either, but I don't plan on going back ;-) It depends on who takes what and if 1/3 EV is a lot. As long as its an increase and improved on, that's all that's needed. Small steps at a time.
SpinOne said:
SpinOne said:
What they do is small increments at a time....
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much. In the early days it was leaps and bounds. Now, it's years between small differences.
Click to expand...
Depends on what brand you want and what format. Over all its not ...... years between.
SpinOne said:
SpinOne said:
If it didn't work this way we would still be looking at 2-4mp. I ain't going back and there is only one way, progressively forward.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. Do you know the processor speed of your computer? How about your phone? ;)
Click to expand...
I know exactly what I have. Been programming CNC machines since 1988 and had a few PC's before that. Mobile phone, no I don't. First of all I would have to buy one ;-)
SpinOne said:
As the tech matures, marketing points like "megapixel counts" become less important. Hence the big slowdown in ILC sales. Why buy a camera every year, when this year's model offers so few improvements?
Click to expand...
You are talking to someone who has used a Sony NEX-7 for the last 3-4 years. I don't change cameras so much, there is no point when it already has 24mp and a darn good one at that. However, my next APS-C with have a higher pixel count, not the same or lower. Same as my next m4/3 won't have a 16mp sensor and it won't be lower.

All the best.

Danny.
 
nzmacro said:
Going back from 16mp to 12mp is not a big deal either, but I don't plan on going back ;-) It depends on who takes what and if 1/3 EV is a lot. As long as its an increase and improved on, that's all that's needed. Small steps at a time.
Click to expand...
I challenge anyone to detect 1/3 difference in EV for DR. In fact, I suspect this is within the resolution of the test to measure it. So, no, there is NO ONE for whom 1/3 EV is "a lot". For all intents and purposes, DR hasn't changed with the new sensor.
 
tjuster1 said:
nzmacro said:
Going back from 16mp to 12mp is not a big deal either, but I don't plan on going back ;-) It depends on who takes what and if 1/3 EV is a lot. As long as its an increase and improved on, that's all that's needed. Small steps at a time.
Click to expand...
I challenge anyone to detect 1/3 difference in EV for DR. In fact, I suspect this is within the resolution of the test to measure it. So, no, there is NO ONE for whom 1/3 EV is "a lot". For all intents and purposes, DR hasn't changed with the new sensor.
Click to expand...
Gees, I said small steps at a time. 1/3 now, a 1/3 later and then another 1/3 and so on. SMALL STEPS is a lot, same as megapixels ;-) Well it is to me because its an improvement.

If I can decrease ISO or increase shutter speed in any way, its a lot ;-) If I can get any increase in DR, its a lot. I'll go forward thanks. For you it means nothing and that's fine.

All the best.

Danny.
 
Might be of use in the LX100 mkII though.
 
Dougbm_2 said:
Might be of use in the LX100 mkII though.
Click to expand...
Maybe it really is something to jump at...."It’s a 20MP Exmor sensor with 27fps and fast sub LVDS 12ch readout."

From 3 months ago:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

RE: New 20mp m43 sensor by Sony leaked!

"Sony.net listed two(!) new Four Thirds sensor that are likely going to be used by Olympus in near future. One is a 16MP Exmor sensor with 23fps. The second sensor is far more interesting and could find his way in a future E-M1II camera: It’s a 20MP Exmor sensor with 27fps and fast sub LVDS 12ch readout."

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

"It sounds like the new 16megapixel Sony is the E-M10 replacement and the 20megapixel will be the OM-D E-M1 replacement. That's if Olympus chooses to maintain Sony sensors. The 23fps and 27fs will be in relation to video. 24fps is good enough for motion video and is the cinema standard, the E-M1 might be advertised as another 30fps camera, and if so that would be a significant down point."
 
tokumeino said:
dv312 said:
"A lot of people are getting hung up on the 20mp aspect of the camera. While I always welcome a new sensor, given that sensors in general tend to make substantive improvements about every three years, note that this just nets you a 13% resolution gain, generally not enough to be visible to most people."

But hopefully there's some improvement in DR

Cheers,
Click to expand...
Panasonic claims 1/3 stop improvement, which is rather minor IMO.
Click to expand...
But if those improvements accompany higher resolution, that's good. Why not? Hopefully the noise will be a little lower, as well. We'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yxa
Just talking the still side of a given camera.

Why not put the money into a larger sensor mirrorless camera. If all the hype is 20 vs 16 mp for micro four thirds perhaps the APS-C sensor mirrorless camera with 16 mp is worth a direct comparison before investing any deeper. Whatever makes sense is of course up to the user, but their are other options.

MP is not the end all and to get a photo quality 8x10 print all you really need is 3 mp or so and that has been way surpassed. For sake of cropping etc sure more MP is not a bad thing.

One of my first digital cameras was the Nikon CP 4500 and that was 4 mp and did a fine job 10 plus years ago now
 
dmanthree said:
dmanthree said:
Panasonic claims 1/3 stop improvement, which is rather minor IMO.
Click to expand...
But if those improvements accompany higher resolution, that's good. Why not? Hopefully the noise will be a little lower, as well. We'll see.
Click to expand...
I'm OK with small steps. It's not because steps are small that one should refuse them. And small steps after small steps...

The point is, small steps can hardly justify a buy from a customer POV. The GX8 is probably a good cam but what make it interrseting is not necessarily it long waited new sensor.
 
ryan2007 said:
Just talking the still side of a given camera.

Why not put the money into a larger sensor mirrorless camera. If all the hype is 20 vs 16 mp for micro four thirds perhaps the APS-C sensor mirrorless camera with 16 mp is worth a direct comparison before investing any deeper. Whatever makes sense is of course up to the user, but their are other options.
Click to expand...
Well, it's just that m4/3 has been at 16mp for some time so the novelty of going higher is there. However, you definitely will see a resolution difference between a 16mp m4/3 and a 24mp APS. But is the jump useful, if noticeable? Not for everyone and probably not enough to justify jumping systems for most when they think about it.
 
ryan2007 said:
Why not put the money into a larger sensor mirrorless camera. If all the hype is 20 vs 16 mp for micro four thirds perhaps the APS-C sensor mirrorless camera with 16 mp is worth a direct comparison before investing any deeper. Whatever makes sense is of course up to the user, but their are other options.
Click to expand...
mFT is all about the combined camera with lens sizes. Go to an APS-C sensor and, poof, away go all those wonderful small bodies and pocketable lenses.

This post on another thread caught my eye:

"24 or more Mp on a BSI stacked sensor would have tempted me (I feel even the Panny 12-32 Kit lens outresolves the 16Mp sensor by a large margin). The sensor tech is in place for such a sensor, 32Mp springs to mind here given the surface area increase over the superb performing 1"`ers.. 4/3 has always been crippled by the size of the sensor in the past and as soon as the tech is in place to do something special with smaller sensors, what happens ? - Nothing (I know every bit counts but 20Mp over 16Mp really IS nothing given the wait time for an increase). Also why are these cameras still 12 Bit anyway ?, Canon and Nikon went 14 Bit about 8 years ago !.."
 
Not a revolution but an evolutionary step -- and a step UP!!!

Stop moaning, malcontents!

If you don’t want 20 MPX, you know what to do.

But moaning and groaning on this forum is not really an option -- it just makes you look silly.

And I am certainly not going back to 12 MPX from the 16 MPX which is a definite and visible improvement -- despite the fact that I did great work with the 12 MPX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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