Reading mode: Light Dark

Oh no not another 16Mp camera!

Go to last post
jeffharris said:
Andreascy said:
Glen Barrington said:
Especially in this price range and in the market it is trying to serve. I really like my 1st gen E-M10. Image quality is high, even with kit lenses, and portability is high. It has been the (almost) perfect camera for me. And I really don't think going from 16 to 20 mp is enough for us to really see or use the extra mp under normal shooting conditions.

What I'd like to see is more of what I call "convenience features". A better EVF, a better IS system, I'd absolutely LOVE to see the traditional PC flash connection, though I don't really expect it at this price range.

The thing is, will the new camera be enough to entice me to abandon my current camera? I don't know at this point. I might step up to a different m43s camera, or I might just stay with what I've got.
Click to expand...
Hello. i am in the same situation like you. I already have the original em10 and i am still very happy with it. when em10ii came out i found the upgrades good but not so important for me to spend 600-700 for better evf extra dial etc. i wanted more. This more never came and will never come. I was waiting over a year for a real update for this camera. Olympus stills upgrade the 3 generation camera with minor improvements. where is the phase detection focus? where is the more megapixels? they could use the same sensor as em1 ii and keep the contrast detect or why not phase detect too. professionals will go again with the higher model as always. Why em10 was best buy? because it is the small brother of the higher end model em1 with the same image quality in a smaller package and a very good price. Now what? they release the em1 ii with the price range 2000 euros they embedded a new technology to this camera and they left em10 far behind. I think Em10 from now on have to belong to other line and not to omd line. and? the release price will be again around 700 euro. I think this is a big mistake from olympus and they will find it out soon when the em10 iii sales will disappear!. panasonic already have much better cameras with improved technology and for first time i am stacked . technology and other companies move forward with competitive prices and olympus without improved wants double price for their products.
Click to expand...
Don't get mad. It sounds like you've simply outgrown the EM10. It happens.
Click to expand...
I still love my camera. but i expecting from olympus to offer me something more to spend money for a new camera.
 
gary0319 said:
Okapi001 said:
gary0319 said:
Okapi001 said:
gary0319 said:
Bhima78 said:
Glen Barrington said:
jeffharris said:
Glen Barrington said:
24 mp, maybe. But 20? the actual practical difference from 16 is virtually non-existent.
Click to expand...
A 25% increase in resolution is "virtually non-existent"? Imperceptible?

Really?
Click to expand...
Yes, when you factor in the increased noise inherent in a 20 mp sensor over a 16 mp sensor that has to be remediated, and the possibility that your lenses may, or may not, be capable of resolving the image on a higher density sensor (see link below), AND the fact that a significant amount of those extra pixels will be along the edges of the sensor where you may or may not find them useful; I contend that a 25% increase in MPs is not enough to be of practical value.

Certainly not enough to drive a new camera purchase all by itself. I wouldn't refuse a 20 MP camera, assuming it had other qualities I wanted, I don't believe Olympus would knowingly release an inferior camera. But it there is no way that small amount of extra MPs would entice me to buy a camera that had ONLY an 25% increase in MP.

On an anecdotal level, have you personally seen any significant difference between 16 mp Olympus photos and 20 mp Olympus photos? I haven't.

https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
Click to expand...
Glen,

This idea of "extra noise" due to smaller pixels is overblown. Did you see worse ISO performance when m43's went from 12MP to 16MP? Or have you looked at the images from the Sony A7R vs. A7S to see that they have the same noise response up until about ISO12800, and it isn't until after that that the A7S finally performs better?
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't see any more noise in my 20mp Pen F than I saw in my 16mp E-M5 II. If anything, the noise is "smaller" (I assume due to the smaller pixels), easier to remove, and less offensive if left in the image.
Click to expand...
It's more because Pen F has newer sensor. With each generation sensors are getting better and smaller pixels can perform like bigger ones of the previous generation. That is why newer sensors usually have better resolution as older ones, and why we still don't have full frame sensors with 80 megapixels, of the same size as on the 20 mp m4/3 sensor.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are correct about the newer technology. My point is that the "old" idea that bigger pixels are less noisy seems to be kind of outdated unless you just are talking about a general rule of thumb and not considering these advances.
Click to expand...
It is actually quite simple and elementary. Bigger pixels can gather more light than smaller ones. If the technology is the same, bigger pixels will have better signal to noise ratio (that is, less noise).
Click to expand...
I completely understand that, even as simple and elementary as I may be, But my point was that it seems many folks seem to ignore the impact of the advances in sensor technology. In fact maybe, just maybe, the new 16 mp sensor in the E-M10 III might give better image quality (and better cropping capability) than the 20 mp sensor in my Pen F. Yet everyone here seems to be having a snit about the new cam still having an outdated 16mp sensor, without even knowing the specs on the sensor.
Click to expand...
True. My comment was in fact targeted at those who think pixel size doesn't matter, only senzor size.

That is the whole fallacy of that dreaded E-word. In principle it acknowledges the importance of technological progress from one generation of sensors to the next, but in real life application it ignores it completely.

And yes, so far we know nothing about the new/old sensor, only the resolution. It may well be better than the 20 mp sensors.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Okapi001 said:
gary0319 said:
Okapi001 said:
gary0319 said:
Bhima78 said:
Glen Barrington said:
jeffharris said:
Glen Barrington said:
24 mp, maybe. But 20? the actual practical difference from 16 is virtually non-existent.
Click to expand...
A 25% increase in resolution is "virtually non-existent"? Imperceptible?

Really?
Click to expand...
Yes, when you factor in the increased noise inherent in a 20 mp sensor over a 16 mp sensor that has to be remediated, and the possibility that your lenses may, or may not, be capable of resolving the image on a higher density sensor (see link below), AND the fact that a significant amount of those extra pixels will be along the edges of the sensor where you may or may not find them useful; I contend that a 25% increase in MPs is not enough to be of practical value.

Certainly not enough to drive a new camera purchase all by itself. I wouldn't refuse a 20 MP camera, assuming it had other qualities I wanted, I don't believe Olympus would knowingly release an inferior camera. But it there is no way that small amount of extra MPs would entice me to buy a camera that had ONLY an 25% increase in MP.

On an anecdotal level, have you personally seen any significant difference between 16 mp Olympus photos and 20 mp Olympus photos? I haven't.

https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
Click to expand...
Glen,

This idea of "extra noise" due to smaller pixels is overblown. Did you see worse ISO performance when m43's went from 12MP to 16MP? Or have you looked at the images from the Sony A7R vs. A7S to see that they have the same noise response up until about ISO12800, and it isn't until after that that the A7S finally performs better?
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't see any more noise in my 20mp Pen F than I saw in my 16mp E-M5 II. If anything, the noise is "smaller" (I assume due to the smaller pixels), easier to remove, and less offensive if left in the image.
Click to expand...
It's more because Pen F has newer sensor. With each generation sensors are getting better and smaller pixels can perform like bigger ones of the previous generation. That is why newer sensors usually have better resolution as older ones, and why we still don't have full frame sensors with 80 megapixels, of the same size as on the 20 mp m4/3 sensor.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are correct about the newer technology. My point is that the "old" idea that bigger pixels are less noisy seems to be kind of outdated unless you just are talking about a general rule of thumb and not considering these advances.
Click to expand...
It is actually quite simple and elementary. Bigger pixels can gather more light than smaller ones. If the technology is the same, bigger pixels will have better signal to noise ratio (that is, less noise).
Click to expand...
Total light across the sensor is what matters, not the pixel pitch. Even if pixel pitch has an effect on noise, it is completely cancelled out by the increased detail retrieval, and finer noise grain (since we don't actually look at a 16MP+ file at 100%). This can be observed empirically by looking at the compare-o-meter between the Sony A7S and the A7R. The A7R easily matches the A7S in noise performance up to ISO12800 when you normalize their image size--AND it also retains more detail. And remember, the A7S is actually a NEWER sensor tech that is tuned to specifically deal with extremely high ISOs.

A quick thought experiment:

Would you take an m43's camera with 1 giant pixel? Or an m43's camera that has a pixel for every photon?
 
Last edited:
Bhima78 said:
Total light across the sensor is what matters, not the pixel pitch.
Click to expand...
You can repeat that mantra as many times as you want, but it will not it make right.

Bhima78 said:
Even if pixel pitch has an effect on noise, it is completely cancelled out by the increased detail retrieval, and finer noise grain (since we don't actually look at a 16MP+ file at 100%). This can be observed empirically by looking at the compare-o-meter between the Sony A7S and the A7R. The A7R easily matches the A7S in noise performance up to ISO12800 when you normalize their image size--AND it also retains more detail. And remember, the A7S is actually a NEWER sensor tech that is tuned to specifically deal with extremely high ISOs.
Click to expand...
I highlighted the cause of your fallacy. By normalising you in fact mean pixel binning. Of course you get less noise if you combine more pixels into one. You are making pixels larger. Which is the whole point - larger pixels means less noise.

Again, what you are saying is the same as saying that 12 mp is the same as 36 mp, because on a 4k monitor you don't see any difference.

Why we don't have 24 mp m4/3 sensors? Or 36 mp APS-C sensors? There is only one true answer - because with available technology pixels would be too small and consequently too noisy.
 
So few people these days actually print large images these days, does resolution really matter?
 
Andreascy said:
jeffharris said:
Andreascy said:
Glen Barrington said:
Especially in this price range and in the market it is trying to serve. I really like my 1st gen E-M10. Image quality is high, even with kit lenses, and portability is high. It has been the (almost) perfect camera for me. And I really don't think going from 16 to 20 mp is enough for us to really see or use the extra mp under normal shooting conditions.

What I'd like to see is more of what I call "convenience features". A better EVF, a better IS system, I'd absolutely LOVE to see the traditional PC flash connection, though I don't really expect it at this price range.

The thing is, will the new camera be enough to entice me to abandon my current camera? I don't know at this point. I might step up to a different m43s camera, or I might just stay with what I've got.
Click to expand...
Hello. i am in the same situation like you. I already have the original em10 and i am still very happy with it. when em10ii came out i found the upgrades good but not so important for me to spend 600-700 for better evf extra dial etc. i wanted more. This more never came and will never come. I was waiting over a year for a real update for this camera. Olympus stills upgrade the 3 generation camera with minor improvements. where is the phase detection focus? where is the more megapixels? they could use the same sensor as em1 ii and keep the contrast detect or why not phase detect too. professionals will go again with the higher model as always. Why em10 was best buy? because it is the small brother of the higher end model em1 with the same image quality in a smaller package and a very good price. Now what? they release the em1 ii with the price range 2000 euros they embedded a new technology to this camera and they left em10 far behind. I think Em10 from now on have to belong to other line and not to omd line. and? the release price will be again around 700 euro. I think this is a big mistake from olympus and they will find it out soon when the em10 iii sales will disappear!. panasonic already have much better cameras with improved technology and for first time i am stacked . technology and other companies move forward with competitive prices and olympus without improved wants double price for their products.
Click to expand...
Don't get mad. It sounds like you've simply outgrown the EM10. It happens.
Click to expand...
I still love my camera. but i expecting from olympus to offer me something more to spend money for a new camera.
Click to expand...
Yes. The EM1.2
 
composed said:
So few people these days actually print large images these days, does resolution really matter?
Click to expand...
That's for people who compose with the Crop tool instead of the camera? 😜
 
composed said:
So few people these days actually print large images these days, does resolution really matter?
Click to expand...
Good Point!. I only print about 6 images a year and these are for our club's annual public exhibit or for local juried shows. Either of these venues dictate a maximum image size of 16"X20". Most of my images are sized for our club's "show and tell" sessions where they are projected onto an 8 foot screen. Even my LX 100 with only 12 mp used out of the 16mp sensor is more than adequate for these tasks.
 
Last edited:
Okapi001 said:
Bhima78 said:
Total light across the sensor is what matters, not the pixel pitch.
Click to expand...
You can repeat that mantra as many times as you want, but it will not it make right.
Okapi001 said:
Even if pixel pitch has an effect on noise, it is completely cancelled out by the increased detail retrieval, and finer noise grain (since we don't actually look at a 16MP+ file at 100%). This can be observed empirically by looking at the compare-o-meter between the Sony A7S and the A7R. The A7R easily matches the A7S in noise performance up to ISO12800 when you normalize their image size--AND it also retains more detail. And remember, the A7S is actually a NEWER sensor tech that is tuned to specifically deal with extremely high ISOs.
Click to expand...
I highlighted the cause of your fallacy. By normalising you in fact mean pixel binning. Of course you get less noise if you combine more pixels into one. You are making pixels larger. Which is the whole point - larger pixels means less noise.
Click to expand...
Not a fallacy at all. The context is pretty clear in my first sentence:

Even if pixel pitch has an effect on noise, it is completely cancelled out by the increased detail retrieval, and finer noise grain (since we don't actually look at a 16MP+ file at 100%).

The point: pixel pitch has less to do with noise performance than what you gain from having more MP. Full stop.
Okapi001 said:
Again, what you are saying is the same as saying that 12 mp is the same as 36 mp, because on a 4k monitor you don't see any difference.

Why we don't have 24 mp m4/3 sensors? Or 36 mp APS-C sensors? There is only one true answer - because with available technology pixels would be too small and consequently too noisy.
Click to expand...
We don't have 24MP m43 sensors yet because Sony has not produced them yet... they are too busy selling the 20MP sensors they just made. Six years ago we had 12MP sensors for m43's and 20MP sensors for FF. Now FF has 50MP.

Also, companies manufacture what can maximize their profit, and allow for future planned products. Its not easy manufacturing sensors, and I'm sure it gets difficult to make them the more pixels you pack onto them. To account for this R&D time and manufacturing tooling time, you bump MP in smaller increments and try and sell as many sensors at one specific MP as you can for as long as you think it is more profitable to do so. Then when it becomes a more profitable endeavor to make a new sensor with more MP, you launch a new one with more MP.
 
I don't get the cam disapproval, with the addition of 4K video and a mic input and thus likely higher image quality and superior IS, this could be a great low cost entry into near professional video quality.....my guess is that it will likely feature 77mbps video bitrate (possibly higher)........this coupled with an improved stills image processor should make it the best value in m4/3 for both video and stills which is currently held by the Pan G85 at $999....people seem to be bothered by the 16mp sensor- but it's unknown if this is a new sensor or current - but with the new image processor it should yield some improvement over the current crops of 16mp sensors- and not to mention no AA filter (?)

Although I have the Pan G85 and like it- I would buy the EM10III if priced below $700- I've always enjoyed my past EM10's and like the looks and ergonomics of them.....I for one welcome this camera.

--
Steve Nunez~South Florida Artist
www.stevenunez.com
G85, GF7, Lytro Illum & Others~~
 
Last edited:
SteveNunez said:
I don't get the cam disapproval, with the addition of 4K video and a mic input and thus likely higher image quality and superior IS, this could be a great low cost entry into near professional video quality.....my guess is that it will likely feature 77mbps video bitrate (possibly higher)........this coupled with an improved stills image processor should make it the best value in m4/3 for both video and stills which is currently held by the Pan G85 at $999....people seem to be bothered by the 16mp sensor- but it's unknown if this is a new sensor or current - but with the new image processor it should yield some improvement over the current crops of 16mp sensors- and not to mention no AA filter (?)

Although I have the Pan G85 and like it- I would buy the EM10III if priced below $700- I've always enjoyed my past EM10's and like the looks and ergonomics of them.....I for one welcome this camera.

--
Steve Nunez~South Florida Artist
www.stevenunez.com
G85, GF7, Lytro Illum & Others~~
Click to expand...
Last fall (2016) I had a chance to talk with a regional representative from Olympus and I quizzed him about the possibility of a near term upgrade to the E-M5 II. HIs response was that the only new body that was to be announced in 2017 was the E-M10 III. I asked him if he could share some specifics on the new M10 and all he would say was that it the upgrade would be video oriented. From what we know, so far, it seems he was pretty close to on the money.
 
It matters to the people who print large!
 
Don Karner said:
It matters to the people who print large!

--
Ol' Don in Broken Arrow
Click to expand...
Yup.

But, if printing large was a big part of my photographic endeavors, I might choose something other than an M4/3 format camera.
 
Glen Barrington said:
jeffharris said:
Glen Barrington said:
24 mp, maybe. But 20? the actual practical difference from 16 is virtually non-existent.
Click to expand...
A 25% increase in resolution is "virtually non-existent"? Imperceptible?

Really?
Click to expand...
Yes, when you factor in the increased noise inherent in a 20 mp sensor over a 16 mp sensor that has to be remediated, and the possibility that your lenses may, or may not, be capable of resolving the image on a higher density sensor (see link below), AND the fact that a significant amount of those extra pixels will be along the edges of the sensor where you may or may not find them useful; I contend that a 25% increase in MPs is not enough to be of practical value.
Click to expand...
Going from a 16MP GX7 sensor (GH2, GX1, too) to a GX8 there's MUCH less noise. More dynamic range, better overall color.

The added detail from the 20MP sensor is nothing to sniff at, either.
Glen Barrington said:
Certainly not enough to drive a new camera purchase all by itself. I wouldn't refuse a 20 MP camera, assuming it had other qualities I wanted, I don't believe Olympus would knowingly release an inferior camera. But it there is no way that small amount of extra MPs would entice me to buy a camera that had ONLY an 25% increase in MP.
Click to expand...
Withe the GX8, there were/are PLENTY of other things that make it a worthwhile upgrade.
Glen Barrington said:
On an anecdotal level, have you personally seen any significant difference between 16 mp Olympus photos and 20 mp Olympus photos? I haven't.
Click to expand...
Olympus, no, since I don't own any M4/3 Oly cameras. But with Panasonic? Absolutely. It's not earth shattering… but what is in these days upgrade incrementalism?
 
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