-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are we stuck with the current m43 sensor size?
- Thread starter tameside
- Start date
nick_webster
Veteran Member
Can't remember the exact numbers but the 4/3s standard will allow for a slightly bigger sensor, but not by much from what is currently employed. Much bigger and the image circle from the lenses wouldn't cover the sensor.
You do seem to be posting lots of threads about the NX-10 recently. Buyers remorse
?
Nick
You do seem to be posting lots of threads about the NX-10 recently. Buyers remorse
?Nick
No it cannot be changed. But the pixel density can be lowered slightly.
--
Everybody loves gadgets, until they try to make them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkfat
http://thinkfat.blogspot.com
--
Everybody loves gadgets, until they try to make them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkfat
http://thinkfat.blogspot.com
TEBnewyork
Forum Pro
Stuck, interesting way to describe it. I actually think it gives a pretty good balance between, DOF control and the ability to keep the lenses small.
--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/
--
terry
My picture a day site
http://blipfoto.com/terryb
General photos
http://tbanet.zenfolio.com/
It may prove an ideal compromise between IQ and lens size. Remember that sensors keep improving while good lenses don't go any smaller.
--
Gallery: http://weatherloony.fruitsens.com/snphoto.html
--
Gallery: http://weatherloony.fruitsens.com/snphoto.html
Gato Amarillo
Forum Pro
Sensor size is part of the definition of m4/3 and 4/3, though I suppose there's a little room for innovation. The existing lenses are designed for the sensor diagonal, so anything much larger would require starting over, while anything much smaller would be pointless without smaller lenses.
As to "stuck," we have plenty of choice in sensor size, from tiny cell phone sensors up through 'full frame' and even larger for those with the bucks. You pays your money and you makes your choices. True, not every brand offers every size and most of us have to make some compromises, but we have many choices with more on the way. If the rumors are correct, Nikon may soon move into the gap between compacts and 4/3, while Samsung is bringing out mirrorless designs in APS.
For me, 4/3 and m4/3 have served very well for 5 years now, large enough to deliver high image quality but small enough for a very portable system. Still, I'm not married to it. If my needs change or something better comes along I'll switch as fast as I can get the old stuff on ebay.
Gato
--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com
As to "stuck," we have plenty of choice in sensor size, from tiny cell phone sensors up through 'full frame' and even larger for those with the bucks. You pays your money and you makes your choices. True, not every brand offers every size and most of us have to make some compromises, but we have many choices with more on the way. If the rumors are correct, Nikon may soon move into the gap between compacts and 4/3, while Samsung is bringing out mirrorless designs in APS.
For me, 4/3 and m4/3 have served very well for 5 years now, large enough to deliver high image quality but small enough for a very portable system. Still, I'm not married to it. If my needs change or something better comes along I'll switch as fast as I can get the old stuff on ebay.
Gato
--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com
jack1000
Leading Member
You will easily be able to find a number of alternative camera models with different sized sensors.
Bjrn SWE
Forum Enthusiast
For me, 4/3 and m4/3 have served very well for 5 years now, ...
Have 4/3 and m4/3 cameras really been around that long?
roblarosa
Senior Member
I'm not sure what you mean by "stuck". The 4/3 sensor size was decided upon for several reasons. Any bigger and we're getting into Foveon and APS sensor sizes, as seen in the graphic below.
Interesting to note that 4/3 is approx. half the size of a full frame camera, which I find interesting since most of the early Pen cameras from the 60s were half-frame cameras.
--
'Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern.'
--- Henri Cartier-Bresson
Interesting to note that 4/3 is approx. half the size of a full frame camera, which I find interesting since most of the early Pen cameras from the 60s were half-frame cameras.
--
'Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern.'
--- Henri Cartier-Bresson
Jonas B
Forum Pro
The E-1 was announced in the summer 2003. It is now a classic and still used by some (folks not worrying about high ISO noise)
...seven years, or let's say 6+ years. Hmm. I recall the 100mm Olympus macro was on the lens road map back then. It hasn't materialized yet so maybe six years isn't that long time....
Jonas
Jonas B
Forum Pro
Hmm. The half-frame cameras used a negative format half of the classic 24x36. Our sensors are about half the size again. Quarter-format?
Jonas
J
jkrumm
Guest
Just slightly larger than quarter format if you consider 35mm the "format." A 4/3 x4 sensor would be about 900mm square, 34.6 x 26mm.
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
Mountain Joe
Senior Member
I agree and I think technological advancements in the sensors will improve ISO performance - possibly even while adding pixels (not that I need them) so this format has some legs on it.
The whole point was to keep things compact.
Cheers,
--
Joe
Photo a Day Journal - http://www.blipfoto.com/MountainJoe
http://mountainjoe.zenfolio.com/
Chop wood, carry water...
Jonas B
Forum Pro
Hi John,
Yes I consider FF as The Format. OK, no rounding today. Well, I'm happy our sensors aren't slightly smaller than quarter format.
I think they are fine as they are. So are the other formats. It seems to me as it is easier for a single person to switch system than for a system to change its own specifications.
regards,
Jonas
sean000
Veteran Member
If you change the sensor size you wouldn't have a m4/3 camera anymore. Same as if you replaced the sensor in a Medium Format back with a 35mm full frame sensor... it wouldn't be a medium format camera anymore. It would be a 35mm FF camera.
Half the point of m4/3 is the size of the sensor. The other half being the mirrorless design. The size of the sensor has an impact on the focal length and size/weight of the lenses used.
Photography gear is always about trade offs. The right camera and lens for one photograph may not be the ideal camera and lens for the next photograph you take. So the best you can do is buy the gear that meets your personal needs and wants as much as possible. It will never be perfect, unless you only take a very specific type of photo and you don't care about factors like cost, size, and weight.
The pros and cons of the m4/3 sensor size compared to APS-C, Full Frame, and various compact sensors are well documented with plenty of examples. For some photographers m4/3 will be the sweet spot on the spectrum of sensor sizes. For others, not so much. Fortunately you are never locked into a single camera system. You can even own more than one type!
I bought a GF1 but have no plans to get rid of my Nikon APS-C gear. One day I might even buy a Nikon full frame camera if I continue to moonlight as a wedding and event photographer...I could use the high ISO capability. If I don't continue to do that kind of work I will stick to APS-C for most of my photography since it is ideal for my personal work. Who knows, I might even find myself using m4/3 for most of my personal work a year from now. I'm liking the GF1 an awful lot.
Now it is of course possible to implement new sensor technology in the same size sensor format: CCD, CMOS, Live MOS, backlit sensors, etc. So we could see some improvements as far as high ISO and dynamic range go, but I guess physics will only let you take things so far before it makes more sense to just increase the sensor size if you really need the gains in those areas.
Sean
Half the point of m4/3 is the size of the sensor. The other half being the mirrorless design. The size of the sensor has an impact on the focal length and size/weight of the lenses used.
Photography gear is always about trade offs. The right camera and lens for one photograph may not be the ideal camera and lens for the next photograph you take. So the best you can do is buy the gear that meets your personal needs and wants as much as possible. It will never be perfect, unless you only take a very specific type of photo and you don't care about factors like cost, size, and weight.
The pros and cons of the m4/3 sensor size compared to APS-C, Full Frame, and various compact sensors are well documented with plenty of examples. For some photographers m4/3 will be the sweet spot on the spectrum of sensor sizes. For others, not so much. Fortunately you are never locked into a single camera system. You can even own more than one type!
I bought a GF1 but have no plans to get rid of my Nikon APS-C gear. One day I might even buy a Nikon full frame camera if I continue to moonlight as a wedding and event photographer...I could use the high ISO capability. If I don't continue to do that kind of work I will stick to APS-C for most of my photography since it is ideal for my personal work. Who knows, I might even find myself using m4/3 for most of my personal work a year from now. I'm liking the GF1 an awful lot.
Now it is of course possible to implement new sensor technology in the same size sensor format: CCD, CMOS, Live MOS, backlit sensors, etc. So we could see some improvements as far as high ISO and dynamic range go, but I guess physics will only let you take things so far before it makes more sense to just increase the sensor size if you really need the gains in those areas.
Sean
Based on what we've seen historically, ISO most likely will improve along with more pixels.
Also when one considers the whole "crop" factor thing, 4/3rd need more pixels to stay competitive. Once they lose the pixel density advantage over bigger formats, their telephoto advantage is gone.
Also when one considers the whole "crop" factor thing, 4/3rd need more pixels to stay competitive. Once they lose the pixel density advantage over bigger formats, their telephoto advantage is gone.
Godfrey
Forum Pro
... presuming you no longer want to work with a FourThirds format size.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
cerement
Well-known member
As others have stated, "4/3" isn't a random descriptor, it refers to the size of the imaging circle. Yes, you could make a larger chip (see item 2 below), but once it extends outside the imaging circle, it becomes wasted silicon.
That being said, two things I wouldn't mind happening (regardless of how unlikely):
1) Lower pixel density - not much, but even a drop down to 10 MP or even *gasp* 8 MP would allow just a hair better light response
2) Multi-aspect sensor like the LX3 where the chip itself is enlarged to make better use of the same m4/3 imaging circle
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OzV6m4dN53c/SIY-KdaN6wI/AAAAAAAAAEY/02N22b0tkkE/s1600-h/LX3-LX2+sensor+aspect+ratios+copy+medium.jpg
--
http://cerement.zenfolio.com/
That being said, two things I wouldn't mind happening (regardless of how unlikely):
1) Lower pixel density - not much, but even a drop down to 10 MP or even *gasp* 8 MP would allow just a hair better light response
2) Multi-aspect sensor like the LX3 where the chip itself is enlarged to make better use of the same m4/3 imaging circle
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OzV6m4dN53c/SIY-KdaN6wI/AAAAAAAAAEY/02N22b0tkkE/s1600-h/LX3-LX2+sensor+aspect+ratios+copy+medium.jpg
--
http://cerement.zenfolio.com/
At 8MP, you're throwing most of the professed telephoto reach advantage compared against the APS-C sensors, which is supposedly one of strengths of the system.
Not too long ago there was a strong voice in the forum against the APS-C DSLRs getting more pixels when they felt the 6MP was as good as it would get. Then Nikon and Canon came out with better-than-ever 12MP cameras which put away most of that claim, and Canon's latest 18MP 7D looks to be a pretty nice performer, bettering the 50D with lesser pixels.
Not too long ago there was a strong voice in the forum against the APS-C DSLRs getting more pixels when they felt the 6MP was as good as it would get. Then Nikon and Canon came out with better-than-ever 12MP cameras which put away most of that claim, and Canon's latest 18MP 7D looks to be a pretty nice performer, bettering the 50D with lesser pixels.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum