Most are missing why the E-M1 mark II sensor is often better than even APSC or FF

[FLruckas]

And this is the best m4/3 sensor ever?

It's 1/2 stop worse in low light than a 5d2 sensor....

It has the same color quality....it took 8 years to catch up?

The rationalization people have to do to feel good about their cameras....

 

[Paul De Bra]

At other sensor sizes that should be rather easily doable.

In 10ms light travels 3.000km so the length of the signal path is not a limiting factor here. There should be absolutely no problem to do 10ms readout in full frame.

What I was mainly trying to point out is that given that one sensor manufacturer makes the sensors for m43, aps-c and ff and has more of a "personal" interest in aps-c and ff it is unlikely that m43 will get a competitive advantage from that manufacturer for very long.

 

[Martin.au]

At other sensor sizes that should be rather easily doable.

In 10ms light travels 3.000km so the length of the signal path is not a limiting factor here. There should be absolutely no problem to do 10ms readout in full frame.

What I was mainly trying to point out is that given that one sensor manufacturer makes the sensors for m43, aps-c and ff and has more of a "personal" interest in aps-c and ff it is unlikely that m43 will get a competitive advantage from that manufacturer for very long.

 

[Le Kilt]

Well, you need some reason to get a camera that is based on the old TV format ;-)

 

[Fun 4 all]

I never would have compared m43 to FF.

But your point that a sensor 1/4th the size is about as good as a FF sensor still commonly used today is interesting.

Too bad all the current FF sensors can't compete in sensor read out speed.

 

[MShot]

Higher resolution sensors have to move more data. To the extent that 20MP is enough, it is possible that it can be better than a 24-50MP sensor in some ways. Its easier and less expensive to keep moving the files faster.

 

[MShot]

Should be dependent on resolution which with the number of bits for color determine file size. You have to be able to store it at the other end as fast as you read it out before you fill the buffer.

 

[MShot]

I think it resolution not sensor size that matters. If 20MP is enough you can stop there and push improvements in other areas. Example: New Nikon sports camera has 20MP. They stopped with sensor density, focused on CAF+T for that type of photography.

For landscape you might want a higher resolution version of the same camera because CAF+T doesn't matter.

 

[MShot]

The limit is speed of electrons for moving and storing electronic conversion of flight.

 

[MShot]

Cameras with the same MP can be equalized. A camera with more MP will be speed challenged over one with fewer.

 

[MShot]

Right, until we can move electrons as fast as light - not likely.

 

[Le Kilt]

Right, until we can move electrons as fast as light - not likely.

Lazy buggers, fire them !

 

[Nomoreheroes]

All of them all the time

 

[ptox]

...and in absolute terms, the EM1 Mark II is more than good enough for the vast majority of needs.

Anyway, taking eight years to very nearly match the abilities of a sensor with four times the light gathering area is pretty impressive to me.

And this is the best m4/3 sensor ever?

It's 1/2 stop worse in low light than a 5d2 sensor....

It has the same color quality....it took 8 years to catch up?

The rationalization people have to do to feel good about their cameras....

 

[Le Kilt]

Can I assume that the em1-mk2 electronic shutter is not susceptible to banding with any types of artificial lighting?

No, you can certainly not assume that.

Anyone know if it has any sort of flicker detection like on the 80D?

 

[Le Kilt]

But if the limit of quality his progressively higher, what sense would have a FF with extraordinary results at 102.400iso?

It enables you to get pics that you couldn't otherwise, e.g. that would be too blurred or noisy.

It would be just as extraordinary in M4/3 at 25.600iso ... is it really needed more? Many years ago it was used as standard large format or at last, 6x6, But Leica appeared with the 35mm (the now FF) ... not comparable in quality, but it was imposed by size, weight and convenience while the quality of the films improved ... despite it has (too) not as narrow DOF at full aperture (… another typical complain against M4/3)

--

JReg

 

[MShot]

If its there, that's all that matters.

 

[s_grins]

Sure, I'm missing something, perhaps, I'm missing a lot, and maybe everything.

But I do not care - I'm filled with excitement because I have plenty of photos to process. I expect to squeeze more IQ from these shots than sensor can imagine in it's wildest dreams.

 

[Le Kilt]

If indeed Sony were to apply the same technology to an apc-s and a full field, sensor, wouldn't sensor readout speed still be faster with the M43 sensor as readout speed would necessarily decrease in proportion to sensor size?

Correct. Using same sensor technology the smaller sensor would always have a faster sensor readout.

Canon has brought out a firmware update to the 80D that now eliminates rolling shutter completely, with excellent quality and high fps. It has a small drawback, it crops a central area of one pixel, but it's a good one.

;-)

 

[Forgottenbutnotgone]

M43 ISO 1300 (30db)

means

APS ISO>2000

FF ISO>5000

so, it' just a hyper leap.

Your figures are false because there is no truth to Equivalence. There is also no truth to gravity. Once the hovercraft, airplanes and other such devices were invented, gravity went out the window and became a false science.

Of course I don't actually reason that way but apparently some people do. It seems to me that whatever accomplishments Olympus may have made in closing the theoretical gap imposed by the small sensor is lost in the lie that denies Equivalence is a scientific fact.

Robert