The 20mp sensor is perfectly fine.

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Jonas Palm Senior Member • Posts: 1,084
Re: The 20mp sensor is perfectly fine.

Messier Object wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Ab Latchin wrote:

I think you are confusing marketing with practical benefits. A 24mp sensor has existed in FF lands since the d3x and Sony a900. Yet we are still seeing brand new bodies with 24mp today.

Buyers can walk and chew gum, they make sensible decisions on the whole. Like others here I am not sure I would mind very much if the next body is still 20mp if we continue to see strides in video, HR modes, blending modes etc. Alongside some other improvements in IBIS etc.

Would it be nice to have a native 36mp body? Sure. I am not convinced I would buy one though, s as I am also not sure the lack of 36mp will move me on. If my business consistently demands high MP I might complement the system with a Fuji MF GFX... and really only for fun as I understand the FF bodies are within spitting distance IQ wise.

But to bring it back, marketing is difficult now. With COVID and social distancing, the push to quality online content is accelerating, where high MP is wasted and high iSO is a minor thing.

I recall that you have an E-M1 II, correct ? And before that was it an E-M5 or E-M5 II ?

So you upgraded to the E-M1 II, but why didn’t you buy the E-M1 Mark III ?

Surely after 4 years the new model would be improved enough for you to benefit from it

I do have an EM1.3. I bought it predominantly for the HHHR and ProRes RAW. However it had some surprising features, HR mode is no longer restricted in Aperture, and there are a few other improvements in use-ability fro work. But the HHHR has been very useful in the studio.

As it stands I now have 2 em1.2 bodies and 1 em1.3 plus 1 Zcam e2m4. My DoP has 2 GH5 bodies.

my disappointment isn’t the 20Megapixels it’s that there’s been no improvement in shadow noise at base ISO. The new features of the Mark III are mostly irrelevant to my photography. I’ll choose the Mark II or Mark III based on which is at hand or which has charged batteries in it because the images I come home with will be exactly the same with either camera. Out in the field the Mark III doesn’t feel like a new camera except for the different button placements and the C-mode’s new Hold feature. It still has the same ISO limitations.

And BTW, comparing the 20M sensor used by Olympus to other brands is meaningless for me as I have already chosen m,43. Comparing sensors within the m.43 format is what’s important, and that’s where we see zero improvements from Olympus since 2016.

With my other camera system I know that the Mk IV will get me much better images than the Mk III. And out in the field I know that I have the better camera in my hands with the IV and can push the ISO a little more and later when I’m processing the raws I’ll have more latitude.


You won’t see significant improvements in base ISO shadow noise, ever, as it is dominated by shot noise. (Of course, you can just increase the amount of light captured by increasing exposure though you might risk clipping your highlights.) Digital noise reduction is the way to go if you find it distracting.

Me, I want a higher resolution sensor. The 47MP Sony (43MP in 4/3) seems like a nice starting point.

 Jonas Palm's gear list:Jonas Palm's gear list
Olympus E-M1
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow