Now I'm . . .

[Agramer]

. . .woried, upset, I don't know how to say.

If the resolution charts are right (or, if I'm reading them right, is better to say Olys pro lenses are capable for 8-10mpixels on 4/3 sensor. I don't need more, but if Nikon have lenses which can fill cca 15-20 mpixels on APS sized sensor, or more than 30 mpixels on 24x36 sensor who will step in to the 4/3 sistem in the era of pixel hunger?
I'm not trolling here. I have E1 and wait for upgrade. . .but just wondering

Sorry on bad english
Cheers

 

[Tchou]

what resolution charts are you reading ?
--
Comments are always welcome...
My gear is in my profile...

 

[Agramer]

I was reading charts from Olys press materials and tests on photozone.de. I'm not shure that I understand what they say. Can you look and help?
Thanks
Cheers

 

[Red13]

Not sure what you are worrying about. Are worried about the 4/3 system will become outdated? The answer is yes it will. That is the nature of technology.

A better question might be; are the the oly images good enough for you?

If the answer is yes, continue using it.

If the answer is no buy a different camera.

Why would you want 20 megapixels on any sized sensor? I understand wanting more dynamic range, better color sensitivity and the ability to get wider but not the fascination with pixels.

Pixels are discarded most of the time. Everytime you print 4X6, 5X7, 8X10 you are throwing away good oly pixels. I can't hardly imagine how big a screen would be necessary to show all 20 megapixel image @ 72dpi?

It should be a point of Oly pride that we throw away fewer good pixels than other camera systems

There is no need for worry. Look at your images and decide, stay or go. Then get on with life.

REd

 

[dgrogers]

The tests show sensor capabilities. Oly lenses can resolve much more detail, but their sensors can't (I believe Oly has stated at least 16mp, but it may be more). Canon is running into this issue now (one reason the 30D wasn't given more pixels), and I'm pretty sure Nikon's legacy lenses have the same issue.

. . .woried, upset, I don't know how to say.
If the resolution charts are right (or, if I'm reading them right,
is better to say Olys pro lenses are capable for 8-10mpixels on
4/3 sensor. I don't need more, but if Nikon have lenses which can
fill cca 15-20 mpixels on APS sized sensor, or more than 30 mpixels
on 24x36 sensor who will step in to the 4/3 sistem in the era of
pixel hunger?
I'm not trolling here. I have E1 and wait for upgrade. . .but just
wondering

Sorry on bad english
Cheers

--
dgrogers

http://www.pbase.com/drog

 

[pgilland]

Why is the 4/3 system necessarily going to be outdated? Or I should say nearly as quickly as some expect. It seems that with current types of sensors there are limits of the 4/3rd system due to the smaller size.

However, what if they develop new sensors that are even smaller than what's required by the 4/3rd system and far more sensitive than the best of today's larger sensors. I have no information to base this hope on, but if your going to look at the general direction of technology it tends to follow the path doing more with less. Especially in the world of electronics, which is what sensors are all about. I would have to imagine that there would be a demand for smaller photo sensors of high image quality in markets such a health care. Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I don't think bigger is better or the future.

I recently purchased the E-1, which more than enough camera for me right now. It will be interesting to see what's on the market by the time I ware this camera out.

 

[Agramer]

Not sure what you are worrying about. Are worried about the 4/3
system will become outdated? The answer is yes it will. That is
the nature of technology.

I'm just woried for next 5-7 years.

A better question might be; are the the oly images good enough for
you?
Pixels are discarded most of the time. Everytime you print 4X6,
5X7, 8X10 you are throwing away good oly pixels. I can't hardly
imagine how big a screen would be necessary to show all 20
megapixel image @ 72dpi?

I like E1s results. Really. I'm printing 18x24cm (cca 7x10) usually, but I want 30x40cm (12x16) from time to time. I know that 10 mpix will be good enought for that. I'm woried (maybe that is to strong word that many people don't understand (or just don't listen) that, and if they don't want to buy. . .will Oly abandon us? . . .Yes, they will, of course

I'm not really upset. . .I'll go in to the another sistem if they stops making sealed cameras (that is my first criteria) I don't want that because I was, just today, trying EOS 5D with 70-200 + 1,4TC on it (ouch I like weight and size of E1+50-200). For now . . .I want just a litle faster E1 with cca 9-10 mpixels . . .and some kind of IS/VR/AS will be nice

Thanks for the R
Cheers

 

[Agramer]

Sorry on bad english .)

 

[Agramer]

However, what if they develop new sensors that are even smaller
than what's required by the 4/3rd system and far more sensitive
than the best of today's larger sensors.

If they do so we will must buy new lenses if they produce them. Resolution of the lens will be the limit in the future. I think that they will be stoped on cca 12mpix. And that is more then enought for me
But who will know
Cheers

 

[Agramer]

The tests show sensor capabilities. Oly lenses can resolve much
more detail, but their sensors can't (I believe Oly has stated at
least 16mp, but it may be more).

Hm, I don't think so (maybe I'm wrong, of course). If the lens is less sharp on the borders than that is lens limit (sensor have same resolution in center and on the borders). Am I wrong?

Thanks for the R
Cheers

 

[Red13]

Sorry on bad english .)

Don't worry, your English is very dobro, much better than my Croation.

I would think all current cameras will be obsolete in 5-7 years. Even automobila companies operate on a 6 year lifecycle. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation sensor has already been built and awaiting the end of the current lifecycle.

Companies have a lot of incentive to age products. If you are perfectly happy with your camera why would you buy another one. That is the death of the company.

 

[mach22]

Hm, I don't think so (maybe I'm wrong, of course). If the lens is
less sharp on the borders than that is lens limit (sensor have same
resolution in center and on the borders). Am I wrong?

Well, the size of the sensor can't change for the 4/3 system. The E-1, E-300, E-500, and E-330 all have a sensor with an active area of about 17.3 x 13.0 mm, as this is the limit. The difference between these sensors in terms of resolution is not size, but is pixels per sq-mm. The E-1 has about 25,000 total pixels per sq-mm, while the E-300 and E-500 have about 40,000, and the E-330 has about 35,000.

For comparisons sake, Canon's 350D has about 26,000 total pixels per sq-mm, while the Nikon D200 is pushing 30,000. While DSLRs seem to be in the 25,000 to 40,000 range, many consumer cameras like the Canon Powershot S80 use a 1/1.8"-type CCD which has an active area of only 7.2 X 5.3 mm. At 8.0 MP this means they pack a whopping 210,000 pixels per sq-mm!

So there is always the option of adding more pixels per sq-mm, but the major drawback of doing so is increased noise, which nobody wants.

But the real question here is how big of a print do you need? And how often are you going to print something that big? At 8.0 MP, you can get up to 18 x 24 inches at 200ppi and only 150% interpolation. Push the interpolation up to 200%, and you can get a 24 x 30 inch print. I've never done this, but it seems doable depending upon the type of photo and quality of the original. There is even a website called "Pixel Outpost" ( http://www.pixeloutpost.com/ ) that claims they can print a 60x72 inch print from an 8.0 MP image!

Honestly, I think anything beyond 8.0 MP for the anybody but the most advanced professional is a waste at this point. So why worry about MP so much and why not just take some photos?

 

[BJL]

If the resolution charts are right (or, if I'm reading them right, is better to say Olys pro lenses are capable for 8-10mpixels on 4/3 sensor.

I think that you are reading them wrong. What I see in the Olympus and Canon MTF graphs is that 4/3 lenses have comparable MTF at 60lp/mm to what good Canon lenses have at half that level: 30lp/mm. Likewise for comparisons at 20lp/mm for 4/3 and 10lp/mm for Canon. This suggests that 4/3 lenses have about twice the absolute resolution (lp/mm) and if so, 4/3 sensors can go to about twice as many pixels per mm as Canon 35mm sensors before lenses limit resolution. That translates to about equal "pixels per picture height", and so about equal total pixel counts.

Since good Canon lenses are holding up with the 16MP of the 1DsMkII, I see no reason why 4/3 lenses will not also hold up to at least 16MP.

In other words: Canon only gives MTF graphs at up to 30lp/mm, but good Canon lenses resolve well beyond 30lp/mm, and likewise Olympus only gives MTF graphs at up to 60lp/mm, but that certainly does not mean that the 4/3 lenses cannot resolve well beyond 60lp/mm.

The choices of 30lp/mm for 35mm format and 60lp/mm for 4/3 format are for judging how sharp an uncropped print will look under normal viewing, meaning from a distance no closer than the length of the print diagonal. The MTF graphs are not designed to measure the ultimate resolution limits of big prints and close viewing.

 

[Agramer]

Hm, OK. . .but why we can see lens limitation on the 8mix sensor if the lens is capable for 16 mpix?

In the film days sharpness (resolution) was tested on films with smaller grains to find lens limitations. On films with bigger grains sharper lenses didn't showing advantage in sharpness (they do in anything else). I think that is the same with photo sites.

Can the lens, let we say 14-54, show more lines per mm (at the borders)on sensor with 12mpix if tests show that on 8mpix sensor it can show more lpmm in the center than on the borders?
Sorry on bad english
Cheers

 

[Agramer]

So there is always the option of adding more pixels per sq-mm, but
the major drawback of doing so is increased noise, which nobody
wants.

I was asking about lens sharpness (resolution), not sensor sharpness. What should I do with more pixels on sensor if lens can't fill them?!

Honestly, I think anything beyond 8.0 MP for the anybody but the
most advanced professional is a waste at this point. So why worry
about MP so much and why not just take some photos?

Well I don't think so, I think that limit is 10-12 mpix. . .butt . . .that is what I need/want for my work.
I don't worry about that, I was explain that before, I think.

Thanks for the R
Cheers

 

[Breiny]

Have you seen any pictures from a Canon 5D at wide aperture with a decent lens?
It'll make you feel like you have tunnel vision!

Not only is there significant vignetting, there is also pronounced edge softness. If you are a real stickler for whole frame sharpness, cropping out the soft borders of the picture results in a major loss of MP.

By no means is Oly the only system to show edge softness at times and it is also not the worst offender.

 

[Agramer]

Have you seen any pictures from a Canon 5D at wide aperture with a
decent lens?
It'll make you feel like you have tunnel vision!
Not only is there significant vignetting, there is also pronounced
edge softness. If you are a real stickler for whole frame
sharpness, cropping out the soft borders of the picture results in
a major loss of MP.
By no means is Oly the only system to show edge softness at times
and it is also not the worst offender.

I know that. I/m Oly user

. . .but look at the photozone. de and you will see why this thread is on. I already said that I'm no expert in charts reading, may be I'm wrong, but best canon and sigma lenses offering more resolution. Please look the tests and tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
Sorry on bad english. Cheers

 

[BJL]

Hm, OK. . .but why we can see lens limitation on the 8mix sensor if the lens is capable for 16 mpix?

Perhaps because the sharpness of lenses and sensors decline gradually as line pairs get smaller. There is not a sudden cut of with perfectly sharp images at, say, 59lp/mm and no detail at all at 61lp/mm.

Whenever lens and sensor/film are reasonable close in resolution, the combined sharpness will be noticeably less than either is capable of alone. For example, if a lens and sensor both have 50% MTF at 60lp/mm, the combination will have 25% MTF at the same 60lp/mm (MTF factors multiply: 50% of 50% = 25%.) So the image is "one stop" softer than either the lens or sensor is capable of on its own, if either the lens were used with a "perfect" sensor, or the sensor with a "perfect" lens.

Moving away from perfection, the natural combination in digital will probably be going to sensor MTF higher than lens MTF, so that the combined MTF is close to the limits of the lens alone. I guess that because it will probably be easier and cheaper to keep improving sensor resolution.

P.S. You originally talked about reoslutio limits of the "pro lenses":

Olys pro lenses are capable for 8-10mpixels on 4/3 sensor.

So why are you now using the example of the 14-54/2.8-3.5, which is a mid-priced, "advanced amateur" 4x zoom? "Pro lenses" to me suggests ones like the 11-22/2.8-3.5, 7-14/4, 35-100/2, 90-250/2.8, 50/2 macro, 150/2 and 300/2.8.

 

[radsaq]

. . .but look at the photozone. de and you will see why this thread
is on. I already said that I'm no expert in charts reading, may be
I'm wrong, but best canon and sigma lenses offering more
resolution. Please look the tests and tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

You're wrong.

(How was that?

More specifically, the photozone.de resolution tests are testing system resolution, which is a function of both lens resolution and sensor resolution. See:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=16044342

--
radsaq
http://thesaq.com/pics/

 

[BJL]

. . .but look at the photozone.de

I did, and notice that the lenses generally come very close to the stated theoretical limit of 1750lw/ph for the E-300 used in the testing. The Canon lens tests I looked at used a 350D which they rate as having a higher limit of 2050lw/ph, and in some case gave results higher than the 1750 maximum imposed by the E-300's sensor. Many of the results for good Canon and good Olympus 4/3 lenses seem to be at least partially sensor limited, since the lw/ph numbers are close to the sensor imposed maximum.

Some quotes from the tests of the two highest end 4/3 lenses tested there.
From the 50/2 macro test:

The lens exhibited an exceptional performance in the lab. At large to medium aperture setting it is quite obvious that the lens exceeds the resolution of the E-300 so similar to the Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 the 50mm f/2ED is only diffraction limited.

From the 11-22/2.8-3.5 zoom test:

The lens performed excellent in the lab. In terms of resolution it's quite safe to state that the lens exceeds the sensor resolution of the E-300 (8 mega pixels) at least at the 11mm setting. More than that the lens is already perfectly usable at 11mm with no significant drop in edge performance. The curve indicates that the lens is basically diffraction limited which exceptional for any lens and more so for an ultra-wide zoom. At 22mm the resolution is marginally worse but still very good.