Olympus resolution and sensor future ?

[Zephir 750]

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.

I concur.

 

[dv312]

I'm pretty sure if Olympus can garner a high res sensor they'll use it (more so to the delight of marketing folks than engineers)

The rumored upcoming 20MP sensor from Sony may be the next candidate

It's a question of user's perception and not necessarily need that the higher resolution the better the result

There are many other factors which come into play when one ups the ante on resolution

As a refresher read this article from Thom

http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

I, for one, may not need a higher res camera but I'm afraid at the rate every manufacturer is trying to distance themselves from the competition by relying on sensor resolution and 4K video, I may end up with one should I buy a new camera whether I need it or not

At some point when resolution increase may hamper IQ then manufacturers would have to think about new technologies (we heard organic, BSI, multi layers...)

It's the nature of any tech business: continue to improve of be left behind

Cheers,

 

[Jorginho]

You are not supposed to suggest anything more than 16 mp on yhese fora. Even though it is pretty clear that there are 20, 24, 28, 36, 50,60 rtc mpixels to be found in cams from various brands...mft usrrs are supposed to remain happy with just 16 mp...

Don't worry though. Market is clearly moving on. Mft will follow with 30 or more mpixels eithin 2 years or so.

 

[Jorginho]

I happened to be thinking about this earlier today. I hope at most the next increase is 10% at most - so around 17.5MP. I couldn't care less though if they kept it at 16MP for a few more years, as long as SNR keeps improving.

I'd rather they work on faster video rates for creating super slow motion video than to cram more pixels that are not needed and would be so hard to notice (ever notice the diminishing returns of adding more pixels? The lenses can only resolve so much detail, and noise in the sensor also lowers/limits the resolution).

Even just 12MP (my SLR) is a lot for cropping, 16MP is more then enough. I doubt many are using m43 for professional usage, it is designed to be small yet have very good image quality.

Of course a camera with a larger sensor can have more pixels yet have the same or lower noise levels. A full frame will be even better! and medium format even better!

On a per-pixel basis, the Sony 16 MP sensor that Olympus uses is awesome. The newer Panny GM1/GM2 sensor is still not quite as good as the Sony sensor used in the E-PM2/PL5 (based on DxoMark).

And looking at gm5 at iso3200 and up at dpreview it has the best noise too comp. to sony m43...

 

[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,
Gil.

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

Regards...... Guy

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.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[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,
Gil.

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

Regards...... Guy

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)

 

[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,
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.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[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,
Gil.

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

Regards...... Guy

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

 

[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,
Gil.

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

Regards...... Guy

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.

 

[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.

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).

 

[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.

 

[joeletx]

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).

 

[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,
Gil.

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

Regards...... Guy

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. 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.

 

[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.

 

[neil holmes]

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.

I think I like 20-24mp pretty much as the best fit for me .......any higher and I need a new computer and less gives less cropping ability.....if I had to design a camera from scratch to suit that is what I would choose at the moment.

Having said that, the a7s is my favourite camera as I do shoot a lot in low light.

It may not be a low ISO DR champ but it is still actually pretty good and currently 38th overall for DR out of all the cameras on DXOmarks data base......and ahead of cameras like the NX1 (well one spot), Nikon D4 and DF, Canon 6D and 1Dx ETC.

In the end, I guess I am happy with whatever the camera I buy has in terms of megapixels as for me to buy it, it has "enough" and other factors are more important in the choice often enough.

The only thing against the A7s for MP really is that its APSC crop mode is a bit low now for some printing......at around 5mp (VS 10mp crop for the A7 and larger still for the A7R).

GX7 is about the right number for me for M4/3 I think at 16.

I like to email photos as taken (yes I am lazy) and even the 24mp A7 needs to be resized for that (or for DPR galleries.....A7s is about the best fit for email.

 

[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.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I'm pretty sure if Olympus can garner a high res sensor they'll use it (more so to the delight of marketing folks than engineers)

The rumored upcoming 20MP sensor from Sony may be the next candidate

It's a question of user's perception and not necessarily need that the higher resolution the better the result

There are many other factors which come into play when one ups the ante on resolution

As a refresher read this article from Thom

http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

I, for one, may not need a higher res camera but I'm afraid at the rate every manufacturer is trying to distance themselves from the competition by relying on sensor resolution and 4K video, I may end up with one should I buy a new camera whether I need it or not

The original Canon D30 (not the 30D) had all of 3mp and I remember seeing images in camera magazines taken by professionals who were masters of their art that I would/could never emulate myself. Therefore years later when I was using a Canon 10D was in 6mp heaven and yesterday's cameras were of the much hyped small sensor 4mp variety.

Sensors move on and may indeed follow the over-populated child's finger size sensors of later ill repute by pushing the sensors that megapixel too far. But whilst manufacturers can squeeze more angels on to a pinhead without clipping their wings I am afraid we will get them whether we need them or not.

However there might be a tipping point where most consumers suddenly decide that 16mp is already more than enough for them. Well before we get into silly number territory. The speed of computer processors has long since turned into an irrelevance producing blank looks from all but the most hardened gamers.

At some point when resolution increase may hamper IQ then manufacturers would have to think about new technologies (we heard organic, BSI, multi layers...)

It's the nature of any tech business: continue to improve of be left behind

Cheers,

Marketing always needs something even if it is tail fins, crocodile grllles, and chromed dipsticks.

 

[Great Bustard]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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 ....

--
Tom Caldwell