Astrotripper
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,676
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 12,107
They don’t have to do much to outperform X-T3 even more.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What is Olympus Hiding ...?
- Thread starter Photostyle
- Start date
the meaningful gains to be had are in the processing pipeline. I am sure it will have a new sensor and will certainly have a tiny bit better performance than the current EM1 II, but I do not expect any meaningful sensor performance increase.
Maybe. Just maybe, Olympus has seen the writing on the wall and is delving into computational photography in a meaningful way. Many here have guessed at it having hand held high res mode. That might be the case, but only with some serious processing of the images. There is no way you are going to get several hand held images to perfectly align just using the IBIS. Also moving subjects in the frame are still a problem even if you could do that.
Look at what Google is doing with the pixel cameras. They are combining many images to get better results. That is nothing new, but what is new is that they are breaking each image down into smaller parts, analyzing each of them and then using them or not or maybe modifying each piece of each frame before putting it all back together.
Whatever the improvements in the new camera, the technology needs to trickle down into the rest of the camera line and soon. Short of the EM1 series Oly (and m43 in general) is behind the rest of the camera industry right now. Oly will not survive by selling high priced small sensor cameras to a tiny fan base.
--
Jonathan
Maybe. Just maybe, Olympus has seen the writing on the wall and is delving into computational photography in a meaningful way. Many here have guessed at it having hand held high res mode. That might be the case, but only with some serious processing of the images. There is no way you are going to get several hand held images to perfectly align just using the IBIS. Also moving subjects in the frame are still a problem even if you could do that.
Look at what Google is doing with the pixel cameras. They are combining many images to get better results. That is nothing new, but what is new is that they are breaking each image down into smaller parts, analyzing each of them and then using them or not or maybe modifying each piece of each frame before putting it all back together.
Whatever the improvements in the new camera, the technology needs to trickle down into the rest of the camera line and soon. Short of the EM1 series Oly (and m43 in general) is behind the rest of the camera industry right now. Oly will not survive by selling high priced small sensor cameras to a tiny fan base.
--
Jonathan
Last edited:
larsbc
Forum Pro
Considering that the EM1.2 is USD2000 vs USD1500 for the XT3, I don't even know why this would be a boast. I would hope that the camera that costs over $500 more will be better in several ways.
3dwag
Senior Member
This is a rumor, and the person making this statement claims he “saw an early prototype”:
”One of my trusted sources saw an early prototype of the new E-M1X that will be announced in Janauary. He said the camera should be able to outperform the new Fuji X-T3 in terms of both stills and video performance.”
Olympus are not claiming anything, a rumor source is.
Still, let's stop and consider for a moment: the rumor source is stating that Olympus will introduce a new model that outperforms a competitor's (Fuji X-T3) at a higher price.
Well, color me just shocked and awed!
They're not hiding anything if this sensor is being developed for use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6021826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6021826/
Astrotripper
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,676
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 12,107
But you get a top tier standard zoom lens with the Olympus at that price. X-T3 with a lens (not the top model, mind you) is $1900.
Wouldn't Oly's live composite feature have fit that definition when it first appeared ? Could be anything. And this "claim" is being posted by a rumor site. Could be nothing.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
bobn2
Forum Pro
Well, if they haven't made it public, they are still hiding it, aren't they? In any case, thats sensor would be completely hopeless of photographic camera use. All they've done is put a low resolution near IR sensor under a BSI Bayer sensor. Fine if you want a bit of low res NIR capability as well as RGB, but why do you want that for general photographic use? But worse, they've educed the depth of the visible sensor to 3 microns to allow light to pass through to the NIR sensor. That will reduce the quantum efficiency of the normal sensor, which means that it will actually perform worse than competitive conventional systems. This might be a great sensor for sticking up your chuff (though it seems a bit big to be entirely comfortable) for some reason that us folk who don't spend our time doing that with cameras can't quite comprehend (perhaps come clinical diagnoses need NIR imaging) but as a sensor for an mFT camera, no way.
Bassam Guy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,887
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 7,576
Yes, Minolta/Konica had 2-axis on a couple models ~2003.
Intriguing! So I did some quick research, yes, introduced on the Minolta DiMAGE A1 and then brought over to the Maxxum 7D. But the technology is different: Minolta used 2 actuators
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
whilst Olympus uses magnetics. So Olympus might indeed have a patent on that particular implementation of the technique.
I agree. The alignment that camera makers are doing are extremely primitive in comparison. Google's approach makes it so the feature can get used in every single picture and there are no noticeable artifacts. The way camera makers do it, any small movement creates artifacts in the picture.
The other strategy is to just drop the price of the older high end camera (which they are doing) and keep it available for longer. Sony has done the same and it works well for them. I'm not sure I agree that M43 is behind other than EM1. The GH5 and G9 are great performers too, and the BMPCC 4K made a big splash in the video market.
Last edited:
epozar
Senior Member
Pre-exposure computation, like now Google Pixel smartphone
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
You don't see much benefit unless you actually double the pixel count to deliver 1.4x better resolution, so 32MP or 40MP would make more sense to deliver a worthwhile
"improvement" in the M4/3 world.
Anyway, I see my 16MP as enough for me, and when I'm slumming it then 12MP of my Casio pocket camera also does OK. In fact it was at about 8MP that things fell into place nicely.
Sure lots more MP (if done properly) would be great as then it allows serious cropping to extend the zoom capability of a camera.
Sitting back at popcorn munching distance watching a slide show on 4K TV then the source material only needs to be about 2MP to really look good.
Computers and pixel peeping ability (and marketing people) have led people up the garden path re MP needed.
Regards.... Guy
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
Yes, like the Pen-F was an experiment that sprung from the Pen line then the new thing will be the "xxxx?" that springs from the OM-D line. In both cases testing what the market will endure as far as prices go.
The old "E-" naming convention is overdue to die as they killed off the "C-" and "D-" line names long ago.
Regards..... Guy
whumber
Senior Member
I own both the XF 18-55 and the 12-40 PRO, aside from being slightly wider the 18-55 is very much the equal of the 12-40 but without the weird bokeh issues that the PRO zooms all share.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Like everything else, things improve incrementally.You'll rarely see the doubling in a single go. But go back a couple of generations and compare, and you see the difference, as in the current 20MP cameras are clearly delivering more detail than the old 12MP ones. They went through 16MP to get there, and the difference between 16MP and either 12 or 20 is not so noticeable.
For sure. My 16MP for most purposes is enough for me. I also have 36MP, and whan I want the extra detail, it provides it. I find it interesting that the 'it's enough' is applied to pixel count but rarely to lenses. You don't often see 'this lens isn't very sharp, but it's sharp enough for me' - people like to be assured that their lens is razor sharp, enough or no.
A few more MP is just a step along the way of improvement.
This is true.
Like the razor sharp lenses, it's not 'needed', it's just desirable. The Pro lenses are probably sharper than you 'need', but sharper is still better than not so sharp. I say this as someone who is actively making the case for less sharp but smaller lenses. Everything is a compromise. Just choose the one that you want.
daleeight
Senior Member
Exactly who said the source said it would MORE expensive than a Fuji X-T3? Other than you I mean. Because their source didn't say that.
And will you base Fuji when they lower the price of the X-T3 around January because Olympus is going to release a newer body?
MiraShootsNikon
Senior Member
Here's the smart bet: the next Oly camera will not outperform the Fuji XT-3.
You need to apply a saying, here: "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Don't you remember all the breathless rumors that promised the E-M1.2's image quality and autofocus would "outperform" the APS-C competition?
And then the E-M1.2 appeared and (surprise!) its IQ is about a stop behind APS-C competitors like the Nikon D500 and Fuji XT-2. Just as everything we know about equivalent sensor size + lens combinations would lead us to expect. The camera didn't have a hand-held "super-resolution" mode despite the rumor promises, and its autofocus--albeit dramatically improved over the prior generation--couldn't hang with the D500, either.
So the smart money says you should buckle up and prepare yourself for the same pattern to play out again, here. The marketing and rumors will gin up outrageous, physics-defying expectations, which the actual camera release will settle back to earth.
It doesn't mean that the "E-M1 X" won't be full of interesting, useful, innovative features, packed in a durable, stylish body, supported by a robust lens system, just as the E-M1.2 was. But physical laws are tough to beat. If you buy into m4/3, you have to be comfortable with taking a one- or two-stop hit to the breadth of your shooting envelope relative to APS-C or full frame. Many photographers are fine with that. Many aren't. I wouldn't bet on that fundamental question changing, ever.
Last edited:
cba_melbourne
Veteran Member
This is a short 5 seconds video of the Minolta anti-shake in action:
Looks like Olympus improved on the design using faster voice coil motors, and later added more axes. Both Minolta's anti-shake and Olympus IBIS are based on "magnetics". I am not sure that is enough to bypass a patent.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum