The best thing to do with a lack of new sensor technology?

radsaq said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

AMD has nothing to with Intel, your lack of ability to follow linear logic is generally highlighted as a problem with today's generation from an education perspective. The statement about Intel is that we haven't nearly gone anywhere near the limits of what microchips are capable of and that is as certifiable as watching the tick-tock cycle of Intel product releases which continue unabated.

Click to expand...

Except Intel's tick-tock cycle has already been broken, so that's not a very good example.

radsaq said:

The general sense of apathy and saying mediocre performance is all anyone here could wish for is the problem to begin with. We're not anywhere near the capability of what we can do with Four Thirds sensors. It just so happens that Olympus/Panasonic are the AMD to Sony's Intel.

Click to expand...

The point people are trying to make is that larger sensor development in general has stalled since 2012. The best 4/3" sensors today are still where they were before in relation to the best APS-C and FF sensors when the E-M5 came out.

1" and smaller sensors probably saw more gains as they caught up to where they should be in relation to the larger sizes. (And for people who are surprised at how good 1" sensors are compared to 4/3" sensors: that's because 1" is only a little bit smaller. There's no magic.)

Click to expand...

As an old and retired man, I feel difficult to bring something different in that high matters discussion that I do not understand.

But there is one thing I can easily quantify: 1" sensors smaller than 4/3 sensors exactly 2 times. Other words 2 x 1" = 1 x 4/3 (in terms of area).

I do not want to spill my beans whether it is small difference or big difference, but it is 2 times difference.

Regards

S.

radsaq said:

radsaq said:

As to my medium format back again linear logic would help along with a robust reading and comprehension strategy. I am well aware we are not playing in the same market as Mamiya, Leaf, Hasselblad and others and that these significant improvements come continuously in cameras that cost $20000 and up, but one could reasonably expect a substantial sensor improvement that is actually meaningful to improving image quality at least every now and then. That's just common logic.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. There's a finite amount of light being captured. At some point, you bump into the limits of semiconductor efficiency and further gains will have to be computational. (Or, since we're talking about Bayer sensors, switching that out for a different sensor layout that has a higher maximum efficiency.)

Click to expand...

This is correct, the 4:3 sensor is effectively double the size of 1inch and not that much smaller than APS-C. The result we should be seeing is a sensor much closer to APS-C as it was in 2012. Unfortunately the Four Thirds market is smaller than the APS-C and this obsession with telecentric lenses with no extra projection tricks means that we wont see sensor development at the same rate as APS-C. The resulting obscure lens and sensor development means Olympus or Panasonic can't benefit from the same developments of other sensor and camera manufacturers.

Hiphopapotamus said:

SpinOne said:

The current sensors are very close to the maximum resolution, dynamic range, noise, and color rendition capacities that can be squeezed out of a 4/3 Bayer sensor.

We've been telling you this for about a week. Try to let it sink in this time.

Click to expand...

OK I'm well aware of the limitations of Moore's law and many other factors I'm a qualified IT professional among other hats but let me use an analogy that even Intel is finding ways to keep moving chip performance forward....

Click to expand...

So what?

With the exception of high-end gamers, a handful of engineers and some computer gearheads, most people are staring at their smartphones or gaming consoles too much to care about CPU clock speed or transistor size anymore. Among those who do care, CPU performance is only one piece of the puzzle -- you also need to focus on RAM speed, GPU, HD throughput etc. Others shifted to distributed computing years ago.

Plus, the days of increasing chip performance by shrinking transistors is soon coming to an end. It's probably going to be 7nm or 5nm.

In the same way that chips are mature, so are sensors. It's not 2003 anymore. You don't have to purchase a new body every 18 months just to scramble to catch up to film quality.

I also can't help but notice that you haven't actually specified how M43 is allegedly failing you. If you want MORE as an intrinsic goal, rather than saying "I want to print 30" x 40" with M43," then I have no sympathy for you.

Hiphopapotamus said:

I also have a medium format camera that can take the best performing medium format digital backs at the cost of $20,000 dollars with a Graflex back and a Leaf sensor. I realise we're not playing in that ball park and I have no intention of playing in that ball park in pretty well ever at least until someone offers me one for free.

Click to expand...

Having shot lots of medium format film, I'd say that even the lowly M43 is not too far off of most 645 film in terms of (for lack of better comparative terms) resolution, detail, dynamic range and noise. I can easily make stunning 16" x 20" prints with an E-M1... handheld.

Hiphopapotamus said:

The thing is, this isn't the best we can do and apologizing for things just because you happen to be a brand tragic loyalist is just plain stupid by any other mans definition.

Click to expand...

sigh

This has nothing to do with brand loyalty. If I believed I'd get better results with a different brand or different type of sensor, I'd either add that to my toolbox, or switch. (I have tried other brands, btw.) I have no problem recommending other brands when it benefits the user.

Part of that is being aware that different people have different needs. Thus, TO YOU nothing has improved, because you're making images of static subjects, presumably on a tripod. TO ME, the advantages of an E-M1 over an E-M5 have little to do with the sensor, and more with ergonomics, EVF, etc. In addition, native lens options have expanded significantly since 2011. That said, the improvements of an E-M1 Mk ii, or a K-1, or an A7R II, or an X1D, or GFX do not justify for me the current costs (both financial and workflow) to upgrade. TO SOMEONE ELSE, who uses M43 for action photos or journalism or serious video, an upgrade to the E-M1 Mk ii or GH5 may be a no-brainer.

Equally important is that ad hom attacks do not, in fact, invalidate a single thing I'm saying. Sensors are mature. Panasonic, Olympus and Sony are not arbitrarily holding anything back. So you can either get used to it, or move on.

Hiphopapotamus said:

This is correct, the 4:3 sensor is effectively double the size of 1inch and not that much smaller than APS-C. The result we should be seeing is a sensor much closer to APS-C as it was in 2012. Unfortunately the Four Thirds market is smaller than the APS-C and this obsession with telecentric lenses with no extra projection tricks means that we wont see sensor development at the same rate as APS-C.

Click to expand...

I do not know whether telecentricity is a good thing or bad thing.

I only know that tight image framing during shot taking, and careful PP add to final image quality a lot - maybe more than all this discussion.

Cheers

S.

rsmithgi said:

Greynerd said:

SpinOne said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

Not having to buy another camera body again.

Click to expand...

Yes, because no one ever needs:

- better AF
- better EVFs
- better stabilization
- better LCDs
- faster continuous shooting rates
- longer battery life
- better metering
- more video codecs and options
- features like high resolution multishot
- changes in ergonomics
- improved weather/dust sealing

If you don't need any of those things, that's great. That doesn't mean that no one ever benefits from camera iterations.

By the way, sensors have been largely mature for a few years now; and the higher resolution sensors involve their own trade-offs. You might want to get used to minimal sensor changes.

Click to expand...

For all that will you be able to see any significant differences in the images coming from the more and lesser gadget featured latest wizzo state of the art until the next one comes along camera?

Click to expand...

Some of those directly impact image quality and some do not. Some make the process more enjoyable. That is the part that gets forgotten in this endless, pixel peeping debates.

Photography is a hobby because I enjoy it. I will not trade an increase in image quality for a significant decrease in enjoyability, if my image quality is already good enough.

Click to expand...

As long as one does confuse making it more enjoyable with making it easier by improving automation. Sometimes the opposite is the case.

Hiphopapotamus said:

The resulting obscure lens and sensor development means Olympus or Panasonic can't benefit from the same developments of other sensor and camera manufacturers.

Click to expand...

You're like the Donald Trump of the m4/3 forum. Although admittedly with better syntax and word choice.

But your lack of reasoning and evidence for anything you say is right up there with the Cheetah Jesus.

Greynerd said:

SpinOne said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

Not having to buy another camera body again.

Click to expand...

Yes, because no one ever needs:

- better AF
- better EVFs
- better stabilization
- better LCDs
- faster continuous shooting rates
- longer battery life
- better metering
- more video codecs and options
- features like high resolution multishot
- changes in ergonomics
- improved weather/dust sealing

If you don't need any of those things, that's great. That doesn't mean that no one ever benefits from camera iterations.

By the way, sensors have been largely mature for a few years now; and the higher resolution sensors involve their own trade-offs. You might want to get used to minimal sensor changes.

Click to expand...

For all that will you be able to see any significant differences in the images coming from the more and lesser gadget featured latest wizzo state of the art until the next one comes along camera?

Click to expand...

That entirely depends on the user.

Many factors are potentially beneficial to everyone -- improvements in EVF, LCD, battery life, metering, AF focus points, ergonomics. Some are beneficial to most (stabilization, weather sealing). Some only matter to a handful of users (high-res multi-shot).

Member said:

You have to wonder how many people actually need any of theses things. I suppose every generation of camera invalidates the previous kit or those who want our money would have us believe it true.

Click to expand...

That's not even remotely what I'm saying.

I'm leaving a lot of allowances for individual requirements. I'm also saying that current quality is excellent, meaning it can be a good thing that you don't have to spend big bucks to scramble for halfway decent quality every 18 months.

Member said:

In some ways it is a great relief having an excuse to break out of the never ending GAS spiral and Hiphopapotamus has a point which was humorous anyway.

Click to expand...

Or: Hip doesn't want to accept that sensors are mature.

SpinOne said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

SpinOne said:

The current sensors are very close to the maximum resolution, dynamic range, noise, and color rendition capacities that can be squeezed out of a 4/3 Bayer sensor.

We've been telling you this for about a week. Try to let it sink in this time.

Click to expand...

OK I'm well aware of the limitations of Moore's law and many other factors I'm a qualified IT professional among other hats but let me use an analogy that even Intel is finding ways to keep moving chip performance forward....

Click to expand...

So what?

With the exception of high-end gamers, a handful of engineers and some computer gearheads, most people are staring at their smartphones or gaming consoles too much to care about CPU clock speed or transistor size anymore. Among those who do care, CPU performance is only one piece of the puzzle -- you also need to focus on RAM speed, GPU, HD throughput etc. Others shifted to distributed computing years ago.

Plus, the days of increasing chip performance by shrinking transistors is soon coming to an end. It's probably going to be 7nm or 5nm.

In the same way that chips are mature, so are sensors. It's not 2003 anymore. You don't have to purchase a new body every 18 months just to scramble to catch up to film quality.

I also can't help but notice that you haven't actually specified how M43 is allegedly failing you. If you want MORE as an intrinsic goal, rather than saying "I want to print 30" x 40" with M43," then I have no sympathy for you.

Click to expand...

Lets just say I want more IQ because what I am getting on my screen is just not representative of what I work with in concept or when I'm not feeling prohibited by carrying around an oversized rangefinder that has no rhyme or reason to be what it is other than old press standards which make it the modular interchangeable lens camera of the 1960s designed for all intents and purposes like today's DSLRs.

SpinOne said:

SpinOne said:

I also have a medium format camera that can take the best performing medium format digital backs at the cost of $20,000 dollars with a Graflex back and a Leaf sensor. I realise we're not playing in that ball park and I have no intention of playing in that ball park in pretty well ever at least until someone offers me one for free.

Click to expand...

Having shot lots of medium format film, I'd say that even the lowly M43 is not too far off of most 645 film in terms of (for lack of better comparative terms) resolution, detail, dynamic range and noise. I can easily make stunning 16" x 20" prints with an E-M1... handheld.

Click to expand...

It's a good thing I don't shoot 645 and have no interest in it as 645 is considered the 35mm of medium format. I shoot with 6x9 which means my negatives are twice the size and there's no real comparison especially if I drum scan out an image to the equivalent of 50megapixels. I suspect if you put two 645 frames together you might get an idea of how big the film frame is I'm working with and that's even before I choose to use a cut film back instead which I can take all the way up to 8x11 with my 75mm Super Angulon.

SpinOne said:

SpinOne said:

The thing is, this isn't the best we can do and apologizing for things just because you happen to be a brand tragic loyalist is just plain stupid by any other mans definition.

Click to expand...

sigh

This has nothing to do with brand loyalty. If I believed I'd get better results with a different brand or different type of sensor, I'd either add that to my toolbox, or switch. (I have tried other brands, btw.) I have no problem recommending other brands when it benefits the user.

Click to expand...

I have a problem with brand loyalty when it impedes common sense which is all too often on camera gear forums. I like the convenience of Micro Four Thirds which is why I'm here but I'm butting my head up against the limitations of image quality every single day I go out and shoot now.

SpinOne said:

Part of that is being aware that different people have different needs. Thus, TO YOU nothing has improved, because you're making images of static subjects, presumably on a tripod. TO ME, the advantages of an E-M1 over an E-M5 have little to do with the sensor, and more with ergonomics, EVF, etc. In addition, native lens options have expanded significantly since 2011. That said, the improvements of an E-M1 Mk ii, or a K-1, or an A7R II, or an X1D, or GFX do not justify for me the current costs (both financial and workflow) to upgrade. TO SOMEONE ELSE, who uses M43 for action photos or journalism or serious video, an upgrade to the E-M1 Mk ii or GH5 may be a no-brainer.

Click to expand...

This thread started out by me saying I DON'T have to buy another camera which blithely turned into what about the bells and whistles. With everyone jumping up and down like they're on pogo sticks with the BUT WHAT ABOUT ME! I'm important to...

SpinOne said:

Equally important is that ad hom attacks do not, in fact, invalidate a single thing I'm saying. Sensors are mature. Panasonic, Olympus and Sony are not arbitrarily holding anything back. So you can either get used to it, or move on.

Click to expand...

Sensors have not gone anywhere near their true capabilities and I am sure that you are a revisionist and that as soon as we get a new and better sensor you will quickly revise your position about the next sensor improvement. The problem with forums is that they are inhabited with a sea of revisionists who state this will be the greatest things since... WELL EVER DERRR! until its not...

This is the nature of forums.

bryanbrun said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

The resulting obscure lens and sensor development means Olympus or Panasonic can't benefit from the same developments of other sensor and camera manufacturers.

Click to expand...

You're like the Donald Trump of the m4/3 forum. Although admittedly with better syntax and word choice.

But you're lack of reasoning and evidence for anything you say is right up there with the Cheetah Jesus.

Click to expand...

Surely it is boring enough having to endure the tedium, even on UK TV for some reason, of people wittering endlessly on about Donal Trump without having to endure it on a photographic forum.

I started with an Olympus EPL1. Later the Pan GM1, next GM5 and finally GX85. The last three are certainly improvements over the EPL1 IQ wise. Needless to say things are a bit speedier and higher ISO shooting is possible. The real improvement with the GX85 over the small GM5 is ergonomics but that was to be expected.

I have other cameras (FF and APS-C) so there won't be any more M4/3 camera purchases for me unless some serious sensor/IQ shows up. I have a handful of good lenses but am always open to a new great one coming along.

Tom Caldwell said:

Whatever is going on between the M4/3 consortium guys and Sony (the sensor manufacturer) it appears to be some sort of stand-off. This could be that Sony wishes to receive a huge order for supply of 20mp 4/3 sensors before it drops the price per unit. Panasonic and Olympus look at their sales predictions and decline to order up big. This makes 20mp sensor equipped cameras expensive. Which makes one wonder where the YI M1 stands - cheap camera and 20mp 4/3 sensor. Presumably YI are willing to place a substantial order based on selling into the Chinese domestic market or take skinny margins on its product, and that this is something that neither Panasonic nor Olympus is prepared to do.

On the basis that newer, larger, sensor sweeps all before it then the YI M1 should be rushing off the shelves. That there seems no anecdotal evidence that this is actually happening seems to indicate that the informed market is now happy to accept a removed AA Filter and alternative sophistication as good enough to continue buying product.

In this light it seems that the OP has a reasonble point in as much as others have effectively noted that other things (incidental improvements) are the things selling M4/3 cameras (at least) for the moment.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point Tom. It is one of the reasons I have not upgraded my m4/3rds bodies. We don't really know how well the YI M1 are selling but Panasonic has fallen out of the top 3 in mirrorless sales in Japan. I would take a chance on the YI M1 to get the 20 meg sensor for landscape if I can find a great deal. I have said before the 20 meg m4/3rd sensor seems to be treated like a 'special reserve'. Maybe production issues are a factor. I believe this treatment by Panasonic and Olympus has hurt their sales.

Silver

s_grins said:

radsaq said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

AMD has nothing to with Intel, your lack of ability to follow linear logic is generally highlighted as a problem with today's generation from an education perspective. The statement about Intel is that we haven't nearly gone anywhere near the limits of what microchips are capable of and that is as certifiable as watching the tick-tock cycle of Intel product releases which continue unabated.

Click to expand...

Except Intel's tick-tock cycle has already been broken, so that's not a very good example.

s_grins said:

The general sense of apathy and saying mediocre performance is all anyone here could wish for is the problem to begin with. We're not anywhere near the capability of what we can do with Four Thirds sensors. It just so happens that Olympus/Panasonic are the AMD to Sony's Intel.

Click to expand...

The point people are trying to make is that larger sensor development in general has stalled since 2012. The best 4/3" sensors today are still where they were before in relation to the best APS-C and FF sensors when the E-M5 came out.

1" and smaller sensors probably saw more gains as they caught up to where they should be in relation to the larger sizes. (And for people who are surprised at how good 1" sensors are compared to 4/3" sensors: that's because 1" is only a little bit smaller. There's no magic.)

Click to expand...

As an old and retired man, I feel difficult to bring something different in that high matters discussion that I do not understand.

But there is one thing I can easily quantify: 1" sensors smaller than 4/3 sensors exactly 2 times. Other words 2 x 1" = 1 x 4/3 (in terms of area).

I do not want to spill my beans whether it is small difference or big difference, but it is 2 times difference.

Click to expand...

Right, and this is why 1" is about a stop behind 4/3", as 4/3" is about a stop behind APS-C and 2 stops behind FF.

I'm pointing it out because I've seen some posts where people criticize m4/3 cameras for only being a stop ahead of 1" cameras, as if that's not how it should be.

SpinOne said:

Greynerd said:

SpinOne said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

Not having to buy another camera body again.

Click to expand...

Yes, because no one ever needs:

- better AF
- better EVFs
- better stabilization
- better LCDs
- faster continuous shooting rates
- longer battery life
- better metering
- more video codecs and options
- features like high resolution multishot
- changes in ergonomics
- improved weather/dust sealing

If you don't need any of those things, that's great. That doesn't mean that no one ever benefits from camera iterations.

By the way, sensors have been largely mature for a few years now; and the higher resolution sensors involve their own trade-offs. You might want to get used to minimal sensor changes.

Click to expand...

For all that will you be able to see any significant differences in the images coming from the more and lesser gadget featured latest wizzo state of the art until the next one comes along camera?

Click to expand...

That entirely depends on the user.

Many factors are potentially beneficial to everyone -- improvements in EVF, LCD, battery life, metering, AF focus points, ergonomics. Some are beneficial to most (stabilization, weather sealing). Some only matter to a handful of users (high-res multi-shot).

SpinOne said:

You have to wonder how many people actually need any of theses things. I suppose every generation of camera invalidates the previous kit or those who want our money would have us believe it true.

Click to expand...

That's not even remotely what I'm saying.

I'm leaving a lot of allowances for individual requirements. I'm also saying that current quality is excellent, meaning it can be a good thing that you don't have to spend big bucks to scramble for halfway decent quality every 18 months.

SpinOne said:

In some ways it is a great relief having an excuse to break out of the never ending GAS spiral and Hiphopapotamus has a point which was humorous anyway.

Click to expand...

Or: Hip doesn't want to accept that sensors are mature.

Click to expand...

I am going back to when it breaks I will buy a new one. The world will last a lot longer if we could all do that, OK for a professional it is different but my EM5 I works fine for me for all its idiosyncrasies.

Sensors are not mature it is just that the camera market is not big enough any more to support a competitive sensor development industry as opposed to smartphones where the quality per square millimetre of chip gets higher by the year.

The fact that many manufacturers are not producing their own sensors is a major change and it is difficult to believe it is not causing substantial difficulties in the viability of all these marques.

Hiphopapotamus said:

This is correct, the 4:3 sensor is effectively double the size of 1inch and not that much smaller than APS-C. The result we should be seeing is a sensor much closer to APS-C as it was in 2012.

Click to expand...

MFT sensor performance is very close to APS-C performance. If they were closer in 2012, it is because Olympus had just introduced a decent step up with the E-M5 and the APS-C market was lagging behind. For a brief time, APS-C and MFT were both 16 mp. Nikon introduced the D7100 and D5200 in early 2013. Sensor technology in those camera lines has stalled since then. In late 2013, Nikon released the D5300 which removed the AA filter and improved the processing.

Regarding current sensor technology, here are the print size recommendations from Imaging Resource. I fail to see the big advantage of APS-C sensors. This growing gap you keep referring to, is a myth.

Hiphopapotamus said:

Pen F: ISO 80 prints display fantastic detail all the way up to an impressive 30 x 40 inches.

D5500: ISOs 100 and 200 deliver very good prints of 30 x 40 inches and higher,

Pen F: ISO 400 prints show a lot of fine detail and well-controlled shadow noise up to 20 x 30 inch prints. Shadow noise does become a bit more visible at larger print sizes, so it's more a personal taste whether or not you're okay with bumping the print size here to 24 x 36 -- we'd be okay with it for less critical applications, though.

D5500: ISO 400 prints are quite good at 24 x 36 inches.

Pen F: ISO 800 images look great up to 16 x 20 inches.

D5500: ISO 800 yields a good print at 16 x 20 inches with only minor noise apparent in flatter areas of our test target.

Pen F: ISO 1600 prints show more noise than the previous ISO sensitivity, and it's starting to impact fine detail in more places now, such as in the mosaic tile pattern of our test image. Shadow noise has increased some as well, so to our eyes, a 13 x 19 inch print is the maximum size for this ISO.

D5500: ISO 1600 images are superb at 13 x 19 inches, which is a nice size at this sensitivity for an APS-C sensor to deliver. The 16 x 20 inch print here is actually quite good, and can certainly be used for any but the most critical applications, with only a touch more noise in a few areas than we generally allow in our "good" rating.

Pen F: ISO 3200 images top-out at 11 x 14 inches.

D5500: ISO 3200 prints are very good at 11 x 14 inches

Click to expand...

Greynerd said:

bryanbrun said:

You're like the Donald Trump of the m4/3 forum. Although admittedly with better syntax and word choice.

But your lack of reasoning and evidence for anything you say is right up there with the Cheetah Jesus.

Click to expand...

Surely it is boring enough having to endure the tedium, even on UK TV for some reason, of people wittering endlessly on about Donal Trump without having to endure it on a photographic forum.

Click to expand...

There's a cure for that ailment, which I strictly follow: don't watch television. In general however, if you're tired of hearing about our new head moron, Donald Trump, you might need to move to a new planet.

We've seen very small sensor improvements. The A7RII 42mp sensor is a little better than the 36mp sensors, but only a little. The D800 and the EM5 both came out around the same time in 2012, and there have not been huge improvements since.

They've done a little better squeezing the 24mp APS-C Sony sensors.

We will likely see a big leap in M43, if ever, around the same time there is a big leap for the other sensors.

rsmithgi said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

This is correct, the 4:3 sensor is effectively double the size of 1inch and not that much smaller than APS-C. The result we should be seeing is a sensor much closer to APS-C as it was in 2012.

Click to expand...

MFT sensor performance is very close to APS-C performance. If they were closer in 2012, it is because Olympus had just introduced a decent step up with the E-M5 and the APS-C market was lagging behind. For a brief time, APS-C and MFT were both 16 mp. Nikon introduced the D7100 and D5200 in early 2013. Sensor technology in those camera lines has stalled since then. In late 2013, Nikon released the D5300 which removed the AA filter and improved the processing.

Regarding current sensor technology, here are the print size recommendations from Imaging Resource. I fail to see the big advantage of APS-C sensors. This growing gap you keep referring to, is a myth.

Click to expand...

According to DxO Mark, the D5200 was announced in Nov 2012.

More evidence of the myth:

2012:

E-M5 Dx0 Mark Score - 71

D5200 Dx0 Mark Score - 84

2016:

Pen F Dx0 Mark Score - 74

D5600 Dx0 Mark Score - 84

In truth, the gap has NARROWED.

Here is another interesting image. These are three rankings grouped together on the DxO Mark site:



They represent the 4 years of "progress" of APS-C sensors and the doomed Nikon strategy of adding useless "bells and whistles" to a failing sensor format. Only a fool would spend $2000 on a camera full of useless bells and whistles when a used D5200 for $300 will do the job of a box with a Nikon lens mount on the front.

Hiphopapotamus said:

SpinOne said:

I also can't help but notice that you haven't actually specified how M43 is allegedly failing you. If you want MORE as an intrinsic goal, rather than saying "I want to print 30" x 40" with M43," then I have no sympathy for you.

Click to expand...

Lets just say I want more IQ because what I am getting on my screen is just not representative of what I work with in concept....

Click to expand...

Emphasis added. And thanks for clarifying.

That said.... Unless you want razor-thin DoF, or have a 60" display, then M43 should be satisfactory on screen. Seriously.

The only thing you might notice is the slightly limited dynamic range. In which case, I suggest you learn how to do HDR. Heck, even landscape photographers who use cameras with 14 stops of DR use HDR techniques.

Hiphopapotamus said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

Having shot lots of medium format film, I'd say that even the lowly M43 is not too far off of most 645 film in terms of (for lack of better comparative terms) resolution, detail, dynamic range and noise. I can easily make stunning 16" x 20" prints with an E-M1... handheld.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It's a good thing I don't shoot 645 and have no interest in it as 645 is considered the 35mm of medium format....

Click to expand...

Just FYI, lots of people used 645 (and 6x6 and 6x7) with a great deal of success. 645 was still 3x the size of 35mm, which made a big difference back in the day when the measure of quality was "how much do I need to enlarge it?"

Hiphopapotamus said:

I shoot with 6x9 which means my negatives are twice the size and there's no real comparison especially if I drum scan out an image to the equivalent of 50megapixels.

Click to expand...

There's essentially no difference, if your output is, say, 12" x 18" on a computer monitor.

If you were making 40" x 60" prints, then you might notice. If you were sticking your face up to the print, with a magnifying glass.

Hiphopapotamus said:

I suspect if you put two 645 frames together you might get an idea of how big the film frame is....

Click to expand...

...I know how big 6x9 is. I also know it's puny, compared to 4x5. Which I've also shot.

Both are puny compared to 8x10, or the 20x24 Polaroid.

Hiphopapotamus said:

I have a problem with brand loyalty when it impedes common sense which is all too often on camera gear forums. I like the convenience of Micro Four Thirds which is why I'm here but I'm butting my head up against the limitations of image quality every single day I go out and shoot now.

Click to expand...

Then you should drop $5000 on a Sony A7R II system. Or $12,000 for an X1D setup.

Go ahead, rent one, see if you like it.

Hiphopapotamus said:

This thread started out by me saying I DON'T have to buy another camera which blithely turned into what about the bells and whistles. With everyone jumping up and down like they're on pogo sticks with the BUT WHAT ABOUT ME! I'm important to...

Click to expand...

Saying "X doesn't work for me" is not a problem. That's not what you're saying. You've never distinguished between your uses, and anyone else's; you implied that manufacturers are slacking; that no one should accept levels of quality that they do accept, with good reason; and said that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

Hiphopapotamus said:

Hiphopapotamus said:

Equally important is that ad hom attacks do not, in fact, invalidate a single thing I'm saying. Sensors are mature. Panasonic, Olympus and Sony are not arbitrarily holding anything back. So you can either get used to it, or move on.

Click to expand...

Sensors have not gone anywhere near their true capabilities....

Click to expand...

Yes, they have.

Remember, a 20mp 4/3 sensor has the same pixel density as an 80mp 35mm sensor. There are serious challenges with heat dissipation, sensor noise, diffraction and other aspects that cannot be waved away. They don't have unlimited R&D, and have to invest not just in sensors, but algorithms for AF and NR and DR and tracking-AF and metering and stabilization and and and.... All this is happening while the camera manufacturers are losing money hand over fist, mostly to technically inferior imaging devices (smartphones).

Perhaps someday Sony will get around to making a 43 BSI/stacked sensor. It's not going to make a big difference, and you'll just be disappointed again.

Perhaps someday someone will develop a 4/3 graphene sensor that blows the doors off of everything. I'm not holding my breath.

So unless you've gotten your hands on some internal memos at Sony saying that they've deliberately ganked their 43 sensor customers, I see little evidence that sensors should not be classified as mature.

Hiphopapotamus said:

and I am sure that you are a revisionist and that as soon as we get a new and better sensor you will quickly revise your position about the next sensor improvement.

Click to expand...

Yeah... no.

I've been saying this for quite some time now. I said it before and after 20mp sensors were available. The E-M1 is still my primary camera.

I've also used 42mp sensors in 35mm cameras, and seen the results side-by-side with 16mp M43 images of the exact same scene. It made very little difference for my uses. If that was not the case, I would have added a high resolution 35mm sensor body to my lineup.

Greynerd said:

Sensors are not mature it is just that the camera market is not big enough any more to support a competitive sensor development industry as opposed to smartphones where the quality per square millimetre of chip gets higher by the year.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no.

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica. That's just consumer still cameras. And it's not much different than in the early days of digital cameras, despite the shrinking of the market.

Manufacturers are improving sensors all the time, they just can't do much about resolution, DR, noise. Since 2011, Panasonic and Olympus have clearly improved heat dissipation, throughput, buffering, adding PDAF, rewriting AF algorithms, improving stabilization, video performance... the list goes on.

Member said:

The fact that many manufacturers are not producing their own sensors is a major change and it is difficult to believe it is not causing substantial difficulties in the viability of all these marques.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not so much.

I'm pretty sure Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, Fuji never fabbed their own sensors. They were involved in design to various degrees, but not fab.

Canon, Sony, Sigma, Panasonic, Samsung all make sensors. Despite the whole Keiretsu thing, that's sufficient competition.

NEX7 was not signifcantly worse than current best of the crop sensors, but it is worse. EM5 is not significantly worse than GX8 but it is worse.

Especially base ISO IQ from m43 has significantly become better.