Olympus resolution and sensor future ?

[Great Bustard]

The first question is - why do you need more than 16MP?

Regards...... Guy

I used to share that same thought when I owned the E-5 at 12MP; while the E-5 with the right lens can pull out a reasonably great images, it did not give me any head room for crop. One can argue that it would make a better photographer out of you because you planned your shots each time. But even Olympus could not resist, stopped making excuse and raised the bar by introducing the E-M5 with 16MP. I did not think it would make markedly difference until I bought my first mirror less, the E-M1 a year and a half ago. I sold both the E-3 and the E-5 a couple of months after the E-M1 purchase. I kept all the 4/3 lenses and never regret the selling. The marginal increase in MP did so much to Olympus OMD series that it would be foolish for Olympus not to follow the new found performance and IQ boost and improve furthermore. Samsung is doing great thing here with the new NX1 with BSI sensor type and there is no reason why Olympus would not pursue to raise MP.

That's exactly it. However, there are still those that feel resolution is unimportant and the hassle of dealing with larger image files is simply not worth it. Of course one can always shoot small jpgs or select a smaller output size in a RAW conversion, so...

The real advantage of larger populated sensors goes unsaid. This is not greater resolution as for screen purposes and even for most printing purposes the extra pixels are lost and perhaps only the best (most expensive) lenses are capable of making full use of them anyway.

If you're printing small or displaying on monitors at 2 MP, I would agree. But there will come a time when 8K monitors are the norm, and then there will be a marked difference. Whether or not this difference affects the "success" of the photo is another matter entirely, however.

The advantage of course is in sensor cropping zoom. This is something that is quite alien to those that want extra megapixels by rote. With sensor cropping zoom the need for zoom lenses might disappear. One wide angle prime of impeccable high resolution might well provide a uncomplicated very small "zoom" lens in any camera with enough megapixels to spare. But even though quite presently most 16mp sensors can easily stand a reasonable amount of cropping and still provide a good image there is an anathema to throwing any pixels away no matter how many are provided (and wasted).

What many fail to realize is that when you crop you are not only throwing away resolution, but also light, and that increases the noise. In terms of IQ, it is always better to use a longer focal length to get the desired framing than to crop a wider focal length. That said, more pixels absolutely result in less of an IQ loss when cropping than fewer pixels.

Your points are good and I cannot disagree, I only can say that extra megapixels are becoming irrelevant to an increasing number of users that are more than happy with what they have today.

I completely agree.

Decreasing body sales in the industry show that the market is nearer to saturation and users are keeping their gear longer or simply finding their mobile phones good enough. If more megapixels sell then they are selling to an ever smaller percentage of the market. Many might simply say "oh, good, I will buy one of these megapixel wonders once my present shutter squeeze wears out".

Just as much as many will buy a new car and sell off one that is working well and comfortable to drive simply because it has a little more power, a new grille and some extra cup-holders. And that it is new of course. Buying that new car does not make you a better driver despite the undoubted extra features. This is here my point is coming from, I am not saying that there is no compelling necessity to do so nor that innovation and improvements will cease. Only that there is a shrinking publicly perceived need for improvement and that scarce dollars might be better spent elsewhere - even on some ultra capable lenses that might continue to give pleasure for many years.

We seem to be on the same page. In fact, it's been suggested that the camera market will shift towards high-end only and become even more expensive since camera phones are good enough for the vast majority.

 

[Great Bustard]

Dear fellow M4/3 lovers,

Me, like you, loves the system a lot. I actually born into it and started my photography 3 years ago into the first em5. Now upgraded to the mkii.We all know how using olympus system is a lot of fun, and the quality is good too.

But recently in the appearing of new mirrorless cameras, like the NX1, the question of resolution is raised up again.When already few alternatives that offers better image quality are available i would like to ask those that knows and understand the physics behind and the probability of olympus coming in the future with a better resolution camera? Is it even possible with the current PRO lenses that is already exist?

Its no doubt that the glass available is the most diverse and top notch, but if olympus is not coming in the near future with a better sensor and resolution, its just clearly stays behind... and for professional purposes better alternatives are already there...

Thanks for those that can shed some light on the issue,

The first question is - why do you need more than 16MP?

I hear a faint chant of the "more megapixels are good" coming from behind the doors of that boarded up ex-retail camera store shop front. Compact cameras lived and died in the course of the megapixel race. I can remember the clank of the jaw drop when someone with their compact in hand reverently asked me how many megapixels my Canon 10D "had" and I replied "6 Megapixels". (After first admiring my 6-megapixel wonder-images - but of course after this exchange all respect for my sanity and good judgement was lost).

So even Sony decided that the number of pixels on their A7r was crass and suitably reduced them substantially and by the way increased low light performance on the A7s (and the price went up as well).

I am afraid that the land of the gigapixel is still quite a way off and rumours are that it is populated by folks with two heads and green hair sporting embedded cameras and great big two toothed smiles.

The A7S has a new sensor tech not in any of the other FF DSLRs, and the high ISO performance comes at the expense of base ISO DR. But, aside from the A7S, is there any sensor out there that has less noise, at the image level for a given exposure, than the 36 MP D810, which has the highest pixel count of any consumer camera? (Yes, the 50 MP Canon 5Ds will soon be out, but Canon tech is not the latest and greatest, as it were)

I simply don't know, not owning either camera but I do own the megapixel "huge" sensor A7r and despite all its obvious coy attributes I have substantially and susequently invested in and enjoy M4/3 and their wimpy little underpopulated sensor. I would not write Canon off just yet. I was early to abandon buying dsr bodies nine years ago at the 5D and despite its sick and silly undepopulated FF sensor it is still a competitive camera today - such is the not the latest and greatest sensor in the pack. Unlike many I have kept my old kit polished and in use and did not sell it off.

Right now buying a 5Ds looks like an attractive "backup camera" to my trusty old 5D rather than selling off my excellent collection of Canon EF lenses and buying into a smaller stable of hardly off the peg Olympus 4/3 mount telephoto exotica

All fine and dandy. My point, however, was not about the relative merits of Sony, Nikon, Canon, and mFT, but about the relationship between high ISO noise and pixel count. As things stand, the best performing camera with regards to high ISO noise is the FF 12 MP A7S and the next best performing is the FF 36 MP D810, where the A7S employs a new sensor tech that results in worse base ISO DR performance in exchange for its better high ISO performance.

Point made and taken but of little significance to those who are happy with their present shutter squeeze.

Sure. As I said earlier:

However, there are still those that feel resolution is unimportant and the hassle of dealing with larger image files is simply not worth it. Of course one can always shoot small jpgs or select a smaller output size in a RAW conversion, so...

But as an unreconstructed troglodyte I was also very happy wth my then Canon Pro90IS which in 2001 effectively had IBIS well before Oympus made it fashionable. All 2.6mp and the images were great and widely admired. That camera remained competitive for years afterwards whilst megapixels raced on to a heady unstabilised 4mp and beyond.

Now I am equally happy with a mere 16mp in my GM1 and OIS in the lens, but only where IS is truly useful.

My Columbus anecdote was intended to show that there will always be true believers who are even prepared to stake their life on what they believe but whatever they find it might not serve their original intent it will still be useful. Even if the world had truly been flat it woould have least proven that point.

Others are more conservative and are quite happy to wait and have the impossible proved possible - as you have demonstrated in a way.

Myself, I'm big into having options as opposed to saying those options are always necessary for good photography. Another example would be IS (either IBIS or ILIS). Not always necessary, but very useful for the times you could make good use of it.

Jump to the head of the queue when the new wonders arrive as I am sure that many on here will not wish to stand in your way ....

As much as I'm interested in the tech, I try to keep this in context with what effect it will actually have on the "success" of my photography. For example, I just got the Sigma 24 / 1.4A to replace my ancient 24 / 1.4L, and someone asked me, "Will it make that much of a difference?" All I could say was, "I can't imagine it will, but, well..." ;-)

 

[rickreyn]

Same here. It's the small package + all-around quality. As one guy put it, "not as good, but good enough!"

 

[sderdiarian]

The current crop of m4/3 sensors are fully capable of fulfilling 95% of professional needs and 98% of amateur needs. But in the current very competitive marketplace, to stay competitive m4/3 needs higher resolution. Thus a resolution increase is only marginally related to improving image quality--its primarily a business necessity. I fully expect to see Oly increasing resolution by the next Christmas buying season.

I agree it's a business necessity given Olympus Imaging's continued poor financial performance (see p. 53 in their 2014 Annual Report):

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/ar2014/pdf/ar2014e_14.pdf

Sony has seen their 24MP APS-C and FF sensored cameras continue to gain mirrorless market share, and Samsung has just won DPR's Gold Award with an unusually high 87% rating for the 28 MP BSI APS-C sensored NX1. As Ben mentioned earlier, it's the high performing 1" 20MP BSI sensors showing up in what should be downmarket cameras from mFT that put PanOly's continued use of non-BSI 16 MP sensors in a glaring light.

Like it or not, the reality is a great many people looking to buy an ILC rate MP's high on their list, almost as if they equate it with horsepower in a sports car. For PanOly to continue to linger at 16 MP non-BSI sensors is simply very out of step with the market.

Why do I stay with mFT? IBIS and the nice range of quality yet affordable small and light lenses, plain and simple. What has me considering a used E-M1 over an E-M5 II? 30% less cost and better tracking thanks to the latest FW update.

What would have me buying a new Olympus camera? Improved AF tracking across the board combined with a 20+ MP BSI mFT sensor that clearly outperforms the current 16 MP sensor and, more importantly to me, allows for significant cropping of my photos of birds and wildlife without a penalty in resolution. Combine this with the 300mm f4 and Olympus could have the dream set-up for a compact mFT camera/lens combination for wildlife.

My concern is that, given their continued financial bleeding, Olympus Imaging may simply not have been able to afford a new sensor for the E-M5II, thus their resorting to styling and a gimmick that allows them to mention the word 40 MP under their breath for advertising purposes.

I pray they're not in such straits, but should they wait a year or more to introduce a current design sensor in an E-M1 II, I have concerns. Market misses like the E-P5 and E-PL7, and snark hunts like the Air, don't lessen this concern.

--
Sailin' Steve

 

[Tom Caldwell]

The first question is - why do you need more than 16MP?

Regards...... Guy

I used to share that same thought when I owned the E-5 at 12MP; while the E-5 with the right lens can pull out a reasonably great images, it did not give me any head room for crop. One can argue that it would make a better photographer out of you because you planned your shots each time. But even Olympus could not resist, stopped making excuse and raised the bar by introducing the E-M5 with 16MP. I did not think it would make markedly difference until I bought my first mirror less, the E-M1 a year and a half ago. I sold both the E-3 and the E-5 a couple of months after the E-M1 purchase. I kept all the 4/3 lenses and never regret the selling. The marginal increase in MP did so much to Olympus OMD series that it would be foolish for Olympus not to follow the new found performance and IQ boost and improve furthermore. Samsung is doing great thing here with the new NX1 with BSI sensor type and there is no reason why Olympus would not pursue to raise MP.

That's exactly it. However, there are still those that feel resolution is unimportant and the hassle of dealing with larger image files is simply not worth it. Of course one can always shoot small jpgs or select a smaller output size in a RAW conversion, so...

The real advantage of larger populated sensors goes unsaid. This is not greater resolution as for screen purposes and even for most printing purposes the extra pixels are lost and perhaps only the best (most expensive) lenses are capable of making full use of them anyway.

If you're printing small or displaying on monitors at 2 MP, I would agree. But there will come a time when 8K monitors are the norm, and then there will be a marked difference. Whether or not this difference affects the "success" of the photo is another matter entirely, however.

The advantage of course is in sensor cropping zoom. This is something that is quite alien to those that want extra megapixels by rote. With sensor cropping zoom the need for zoom lenses might disappear. One wide angle prime of impeccable high resolution might well provide a uncomplicated very small "zoom" lens in any camera with enough megapixels to spare. But even though quite presently most 16mp sensors can easily stand a reasonable amount of cropping and still provide a good image there is an anathema to throwing any pixels away no matter how many are provided (and wasted).

What many fail to realize is that when you crop you are not only throwing away resolution, but also light, and that increases the noise. In terms of IQ, it is always better to use a longer focal length to get the desired framing than to crop a wider focal length. That said, more pixels absolutely result in less of an IQ loss when cropping than fewer pixels.

Your points are good and I cannot disagree, I only can say that extra megapixels are becoming irrelevant to an increasing number of users that are more than happy with what they have today.

I completely agree.

Decreasing body sales in the industry show that the market is nearer to saturation and users are keeping their gear longer or simply finding their mobile phones good enough. If more megapixels sell then they are selling to an ever smaller percentage of the market. Many might simply say "oh, good, I will buy one of these megapixel wonders once my present shutter squeeze wears out".

Just as much as many will buy a new car and sell off one that is working well and comfortable to drive simply because it has a little more power, a new grille and some extra cup-holders. And that it is new of course. Buying that new car does not make you a better driver despite the undoubted extra features. This is here my point is coming from, I am not saying that there is no compelling necessity to do so nor that innovation and improvements will cease. Only that there is a shrinking publicly perceived need for improvement and that scarce dollars might be better spent elsewhere - even on some ultra capable lenses that might continue to give pleasure for many years.

We seem to be on the same page. In fact, it's been suggested that the camera market will shift towards high-end only and become even more expensive since camera phones are good enough for the vast majority.

I agree, the long term camera market has always been good-enough relatively inexpensive cameras for everyone and the awe and wonder of a small number of treasures used only by professionals and well-heeled amateurs - there is no doubt that the industry is just returning to a more natural state of things. The only major difference is that the subsdised "plan" system for mobile phones makes having a free but still quite capable camera ubiquitous.

This has stymied what might have been a mass market for the compact point and shoot camera - the present day Brownie is only marginally represented by the cheaper end camera with kit lens that does everything on automatic out of the box. Come to think of it there was always a market for the lower level slr with kit lens forever used like a point and shoot with the lens that came with the camera.

Most of my offspring are more than happy with "basic" and refuse to even move the dial on top or press any buttons.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Dear fellow M4/3 lovers,

Me, like you, loves the system a lot. I actually born into it and started my photography 3 years ago into the first em5. Now upgraded to the mkii.We all know how using olympus system is a lot of fun, and the quality is good too.

But recently in the appearing of new mirrorless cameras, like the NX1, the question of resolution is raised up again.When already few alternatives that offers better image quality are available i would like to ask those that knows and understand the physics behind and the probability of olympus coming in the future with a better resolution camera? Is it even possible with the current PRO lenses that is already exist?

Its no doubt that the glass available is the most diverse and top notch, but if olympus is not coming in the near future with a better sensor and resolution, its just clearly stays behind... and for professional purposes better alternatives are already there...

Thanks for those that can shed some light on the issue,

The first question is - why do you need more than 16MP?

I hear a faint chant of the "more megapixels are good" coming from behind the doors of that boarded up ex-retail camera store shop front. Compact cameras lived and died in the course of the megapixel race. I can remember the clank of the jaw drop when someone with their compact in hand reverently asked me how many megapixels my Canon 10D "had" and I replied "6 Megapixels". (After first admiring my 6-megapixel wonder-images - but of course after this exchange all respect for my sanity and good judgement was lost).

So even Sony decided that the number of pixels on their A7r was crass and suitably reduced them substantially and by the way increased low light performance on the A7s (and the price went up as well).

I am afraid that the land of the gigapixel is still quite a way off and rumours are that it is populated by folks with two heads and green hair sporting embedded cameras and great big two toothed smiles.

The A7S has a new sensor tech not in any of the other FF DSLRs, and the high ISO performance comes at the expense of base ISO DR. But, aside from the A7S, is there any sensor out there that has less noise, at the image level for a given exposure, than the 36 MP D810, which has the highest pixel count of any consumer camera? (Yes, the 50 MP Canon 5Ds will soon be out, but Canon tech is not the latest and greatest, as it were)

I simply don't know, not owning either camera but I do own the megapixel "huge" sensor A7r and despite all its obvious coy attributes I have substantially and susequently invested in and enjoy M4/3 and their wimpy little underpopulated sensor. I would not write Canon off just yet. I was early to abandon buying dsr bodies nine years ago at the 5D and despite its sick and silly undepopulated FF sensor it is still a competitive camera today - such is the not the latest and greatest sensor in the pack. Unlike many I have kept my old kit polished and in use and did not sell it off.

Right now buying a 5Ds looks like an attractive "backup camera" to my trusty old 5D rather than selling off my excellent collection of Canon EF lenses and buying into a smaller stable of hardly off the peg Olympus 4/3 mount telephoto exotica

All fine and dandy. My point, however, was not about the relative merits of Sony, Nikon, Canon, and mFT, but about the relationship between high ISO noise and pixel count. As things stand, the best performing camera with regards to high ISO noise is the FF 12 MP A7S and the next best performing is the FF 36 MP D810, where the A7S employs a new sensor tech that results in worse base ISO DR performance in exchange for its better high ISO performance.

Point made and taken but of little significance to those who are happy with their present shutter squeeze.

Sure. As I said earlier:

However, there are still those that feel resolution is unimportant and the hassle of dealing with larger image files is simply not worth it. Of course one can always shoot small jpgs or select a smaller output size in a RAW conversion, so...

But as an unreconstructed troglodyte I was also very happy wth my then Canon Pro90IS which in 2001 effectively had IBIS well before Oympus made it fashionable. All 2.6mp and the images were great and widely admired. That camera remained competitive for years afterwards whilst megapixels raced on to a heady unstabilised 4mp and beyond.

Now I am equally happy with a mere 16mp in my GM1 and OIS in the lens, but only where IS is truly useful.

My Columbus anecdote was intended to show that there will always be true believers who are even prepared to stake their life on what they believe but whatever they find it might not serve their original intent it will still be useful. Even if the world had truly been flat it woould have least proven that point.

Others are more conservative and are quite happy to wait and have the impossible proved possible - as you have demonstrated in a way.

Myself, I'm big into having options as opposed to saying those options are always necessary for good photography. Another example would be IS (either IBIS or ILIS). Not always necessary, but very useful for the times you could make good use of it.

Jump to the head of the queue when the new wonders arrive as I am sure that many on here will not wish to stand in your way ....

As much as I'm interested in the tech, I try to keep this in context with what effect it will actually have on the "success" of my photography. For example, I just got the Sigma 24 / 1.4A to replace my ancient 24 / 1.4L, and someone asked me, "Will it make that much of a difference?" All I could say was, "I can't imagine it will, but, well..." ;-)

Nobody ever took a worse image with better gear ... whether they took a better image is quite another thing ....

It is a bit like climbing mountains - "why did you buy some new camera gear?" - "because I could".

 

[FingerPainter]

Agree, I do not need more resolution (not that it could not be better in some cases, but just after the next issue), just need less noise in low light !

so, first solve the noise issue in low light / higher iso, than talk with us to increase resolution, but really just after solving the first issues.

It is most probably easier to increase resolution to 20-24MP than it is to decrease high ISO 6400 noise by 2/3 stop. We are close to physical limits on noise control, but not so close to physical limits for resolution.

Noise performance is dependant on two things: the amount of light collected by the sensor and the amount of noise added by the sensor and associated circuitry. The former is now a fraction of a stop from the maximum for a given sensor size and exposure (quantum efficiency is greater than 50%). Typical read noise levels in non-Canon sensors are already so low that the isn't much room for improvement left. In short, the only way you are likely to see a full stop improvement in high ISO performance in the next few years is to move up in sensor size.

 

[joeletx]

The A7S has a new sensor tech not in any of the other FF DSLRs, and the high ISO performance comes at the expense of base ISO DR. But, aside from the A7S, is there any sensor out there that has less noise, at the image level for a given exposure, than the 36 MP D810, which has the highest pixel count of any consumer camera? (Yes, the 50 MP Canon 5Ds will soon be out, but Canon tech is not the latest and greatest, as it were)

Strictly by the pixel densities, not counting 1" sensor:

Nikon D810 FF 36MP - 0.0417 MP/sq.mm

Samsung NX-1 ASP-C BSI 28.2MP - 0.0858 MP/sq.mm (the highest density)

Olympus E-M5 II 16MP m43 - 0.0711 MP/sq.mm (the next highest density)

m43 equivalent next jump would be 19.3MP using Samsung BSI sensor for m43. So it is entirely feasible for 20MP Olympus next move.

I would throw the 1" sensor into the mix and go beyond 20 MP, to be honest.

For the Sony 20MP 1" BSI sensor on the RX10, the pixel density would be 0.1722 MP/sq.mm; the highest of all and twice as dense as the Samsung sensor.

 

[tjuster1]

Dear fellow M4/3 lovers,

Me, like you, loves the system a lot. I actually born into it and started my photography 3 years ago into the first em5. Now upgraded to the mkii.We all know how using olympus system is a lot of fun, and the quality is good too.

But recently in the appearing of new mirrorless cameras, like the NX1, the question of resolution is raised up again.When already few alternatives that offers better image quality are available i would like to ask those that knows and understand the physics behind and the probability of olympus coming in the future with a better resolution camera? Is it even possible with the current PRO lenses that is already exist?

Its no doubt that the glass available is the most diverse and top notch, but if olympus is not coming in the near future with a better sensor and resolution, its just clearly stays behind... and for professional purposes better alternatives are already there...

Thanks for those that can shed some light on the issue,
Gil.

Seriously?

Didn't we just endure 150 posts about this same subject pushed by Jorginho?

I'd bet a lot of money that 20 or 24 or 30 or 50 vs. 16 Mpix wouldn't make a whit of perceptual difference to 99.9% of the people who post on here.

Just like 4K. People being pushed by marketers to buy stuff they don't need.

 

[zodiacfml]

Sony will produce a 20MP 4/3 sensor.

 

[call me Skippy]

Just a question: 20MP dont get you much, if your lenses are not able to resolve them.

Concerning the original question: Didnt the 4/3-rumor website recently report something about a new mft-sensor going beyond 16? Whatever: I dont really care for four or even eight MP extra. Would be nice - but dont really need it. It was the same with the jump from 12 to 16MP: Wasnt a reason to buy the OMD. Noise and dynamic range were. If the em5 mark II offered more pixels, I would still long more for the faster shutter speed, flippy-thingie-screen, focus peeking etc. than the pixels... Additionally, the "bumps" get smaller in relation to what I already have and the jump from 12 to 16 - though noticeable - was already not as fullfilling as I imagined...

 

[Great Bustard]

Just a question: 20MP dont get you much, if your lenses are not able to resolve them.

Put more pixels behind *any* lens and get more resolution, all else equal. The maximum possible resolution increase from 16 MP to 20 MP with a perfect lens under ideal circumstances is 12%, again, all else equal.

Concerning the original question: Didnt the 4/3-rumor website recently report something about a new mft-sensor going beyond 16? Whatever: I dont really care for four or even eight MP extra. Would be nice - but dont really need it. It was the same with the jump from 12 to 16MP: Wasnt a reason to buy the OMD. Noise and dynamic range were. If the em5 mark II offered more pixels, I would still long more for the faster shutter speed, flippy-thingie-screen, focus peeking etc. than the pixels... Additionally, the "bumps" get smaller in relation to what I already have and the jump from 12 to 16 - though noticeable - was already not as fullfilling as I imagined...

All sorts of things would be more important than, say, a 6% average resolution increase.

 

[Jorginho]

Foveon is sold as getting people 3*15 = 45 mp IQ and hailed for it. It is not 45 MP good, but it is about 30 MPixel good when it comes to resolution.

The discussions on this sensor are many times mixing theory and reality. So eahc colour in theory is truely measured and no bayer nonsense etc. In reality the foveon gives many freaky colours. Especially when it comes to the sky.

Now Foveons problems are clear too:

- they lack Dynamic range. Sigma exposes such that highlights are the target, leaving dark shadows that cannot be pulled with getting excessive noise
- As mentioned: Freaky colours
- False detail

DR is closely correlated to noise. Foveon sensors are usable to 400, may 800 ISO which say enough. They are about 2 stops behind current best mFT sensors.

But okey...something like Foveon could be Sony APCS. It does the same in some ways, but different in others. I would love to see how it turns out because I think it will have its downsides too.

Oly HR mode. Currently restricted but a first generation. What it needs:

- No strange artifacts when something moves.Photoacute lets you take multiple shots and even when things move it is not noticable I have been told. Oly has said with the FW update the noise is now less or gone. Wonder what they mena, because the pics are fantastic at high ISO with extremely little noise.
- Oly already has said there will be HR that can be used without a tripod. If so, that eliminates another problem

Now we might end up with Oly HR that is good for everything, but not action shooting. We see that true action cams like D4s that they use 16 MPixel. More MP surely will come but it seems less of a letdown. With a new 20 or 2 MP Oly that gets high res at 60 or more MP and good actionshooting at 20-24 MP I think there is no real downside to such a cam anymore.

I have seen absolutely stunning hR mode WITHmovement already, I can see myself pick up an EM5 MarkII or EM2 (with HR).

 

[Sergey_Green]

Foveon is sold as getting people 3*15 = 45 mp IQ and hailed for it. It is not 45 MP good, but it is about 30 MPixel good when it comes to resolution.

The discussions on this sensor are many times mixing theory and reality. So eahc colour in theory is truely measured and no bayer nonsense etc. In reality the foveon gives many freaky colours. Especially when it comes to the sky.

Now Foveons problems are clear too:

- they lack Dynamic range. Sigma exposes such that highlights are the target, leaving dark shadows that cannot be pulled with getting excessive noise
- As mentioned: Freaky colours
- False detail

DR is closely correlated to noise. Foveon sensors are usable to 400, may 800 ISO which say enough. They are about 2 stops behind current best mFT sensors.

..

It lacks in one thing, excels in the other. The key is in what you value the most; versatility or the best image under the ideal (or close to ideal) scenario. Same goes for 36MP cameras, if you know what you need it for, they are great. Else, leave it at home, and take what has a quarter of the imager inside. It will do just fine.

--
- sergey

 

[DonParrot]

It's funny.
In the automotive world, you have to buy a Bugatti if you want a 1000bhp production car. And you have to pay the price. The others opt for the more reasonable choices and are happy with it.

In the photographic world, marketing tries to hoax us into the idea that we all need the 1000bhp engine and that we all should pay the price. And unfortunately, this marketing works and quite a number of those who are well skilled are trapped and spread the multi-MP necessity around the world.
Well, I'm asking myself if they already have thrown all their pictures shot in the past decade with their oh so with insufficient equipment into the bin?
As I see it, this entire Multi-MP race is absolute ridiculous. Just as 4K or 8K TVs are. You really should try to get of the marketing's hook.

 

[Advent1sam]

Dear fellow M4/3 lovers,

Me, like you, loves the system a lot. I actually born into it and started my photography 3 years ago into the first em5. Now upgraded to the mkii.We all know how using olympus system is a lot of fun, and the quality is good too.

But recently in the appearing of new mirrorless cameras, like the NX1, the question of resolution is raised up again.When already few alternatives that offers better image quality are available i would like to ask those that knows and understand the physics behind and the probability of olympus coming in the future with a better resolution camera? Is it even possible with the current PRO lenses that is already exist?

Its no doubt that the glass available is the most diverse and top notch, but if olympus is not coming in the near future with a better sensor and resolution, its just clearly stays behind... and for professional purposes better alternatives are already there...

Thanks for those that can shed some light on the issue,
Gil.

Gilo, software will interpolate your images from raw plug-in to 30mp with limited issues and effectively matches NX1 and d7200 with ease. Download the 2 images from this post!! As you will see, if this is 30mp then 20mp or 24mp is a walk in the park, I'll do a 24mp comparison with the d7200 over the weekend. The beauty of the em5 ii is its outstanding resolution and low noise, for interpolation this is fantastic and offers you a lot of options, you also have the option for the static 40mp resolution too which is better than anything this side of 50mp Medium Format.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Advent1sam]

Sony will produce a 20MP 4/3 sensor.

16 to 20 is not noticeable in resolution of images, even NX1 28mp does not out resolve the em5 ii by as much as you would want/hope. You would need as much as 30mp on a m43 sensor to have a real meaningfull step up over the current 16mp image and as such noise will intrude hugely. This is em5 ii at 30mp interpolated to match an NX1, as you can see it is pretty close call.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Colin K. Work]

Dear fellow M4/3 lovers,

Me, like you, loves the system a lot. I actually born into it and started my photography 3 years ago into the first em5. Now upgraded to the mkii.We all know how using olympus system is a lot of fun, and the quality is good too.

But recently in the appearing of new mirrorless cameras, like the NX1, the question of resolution is raised up again.When already few alternatives that offers better image quality are available i would like to ask those that knows and understand the physics behind and the probability of olympus coming in the future with a better resolution camera? Is it even possible with the current PRO lenses that is already exist?

Its no doubt that the glass available is the most diverse and top notch, but if olympus is not coming in the near future with a better sensor and resolution, its just clearly stays behind... and for professional purposes better alternatives are already there...

Thanks for those that can shed some light on the issue,
Gil.

The first question is - why do you need more than 16MP?

Regards...... Guy

You are an engineer you should know, it's the nature of the technology, you can't avoid or stop it. In the not distance you will be shooting real 24 then 36Mp images in m4/3. You will be still around then and If you don't like it don't buy it. It's that simple.

The world needs optimists with the firm strength strength of their convictions. Columbus sailed forever westward completely sure that he would find something. What he found was not what he sought but was deemed worthwhile in any case (at least by some). He came back. Pessimists sayed at home and waited. Who was the more rational? Um ... he didn't find a quick route to the spice trade, nor did he sail off the edge, and the pessimists found alternative uses for what he found. It must have sold a thousand new ships.

So if more megapixels happen in one form or another then the pessimists will find a use for them meanwhile they are quite happy to entertain those who think that the world is not flat and happily till their present fields with what they already have.

 

[John King]

A well made point, Sam. Thanks.

 

[Tom Ames]

Hi,

I'm sure they will release a 20-24 mp sensor on their next camera line. They are falling behind, if not. But smart of Olympus not to rush it on the account of IQ, but I guess it is pass rush mode now in 2015.

See you get lots of replies with people defending their 16mp cameras It was the same in the Nikon camp when Nikon had only 12mp sensors. Nothing more was needed he he