Olympus will have to go with a bigger sensor

[Jonathan Demarais]

I figure in less than a year, maybe six months they'll announce this. 4/3rds won't disappear, but it'll either be confined to the low-end or just micro 4/3rds equipment. You can't fight "city hall" and the proliferation of affordable 15+ megapixel 1.5 sensored cameras and 35mm sensor sizes will push Olympus into the camp occupied by Nikon, Canon, Sony and Pentax. Every time I go into a camera store, I hear the sales people parroting the same line, "Olympus has good lenses but their sensors are too small and noisy." It's too bad. With that kind of feedback, it is inevitable that Olympus will lose more ground against the others.

I do not see them going micro 4/3rds only, that's going to be in the P&S category not long after it launches, likely with the same low profit margins that sector sees.

What I hope transpires is some kind of middle ground, perhaps a 4/3rd's sensor form sized between a 1.5 and 35mm sized sensor. This would be superb.

--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 (IR) & Pentax K20D.
57 lenses of various types from most brands.

 

[Juergen Hahn]

...and what exactly do you think you will gain from a bigger sensor? I agree that there are some benefits to this, however, those are not what the majority of people essentially need. The question that remains is why throw away a system that you have and that works and develop something new (where you need to go head to head with Canon, Nikon, and Sony) for something that only some people need?

I think they are better of making the best of the system that they have and further developing it. If someone really needs ultra shallow DOF or needs 20+MP resolutions then they will likely go with one of the cameras that already do this (and Olympus is not going to invest heavily to develop such a system for such a small market).

 

[gnarayan]

There isn't any point in that. Even moving to a somewhat larger sensor while keeping the same lens lineup and using more of the image circle, vignetting or blurred corners be damned, would only move the goal post because then the comparison will only be exclusively against 35mm rather than APS-C and their lenses do not cover the 35mm image circle so you are now against a wall.

Frankly I don't think the differences to APS-C are large enough to bother particularly since the problem isn't really the format choice but Pany and its sensors that have so far fallen apart in marginal conditions. This isn't something inherent to the sensor size at all but purely a Pany R&D problem. It is clear they can get 12 MP and that seems to be around where most of the market is now anyway so I don't particularly think they are uncompetitive. I thought the tweener looked fairly good actually, and we already know the two companies are looking at HD video from the same sensors.

For all the talk of 35mm DSLR prices coming down they are still well above $2K - many places still sell the 5D new for that much so moving there is going to be fighting for an already expensive and therefore small market with already established contenders. And they are all big - and this is a huge deal for me.

If you really believe that the market is going to go towards larger sensors but you still feel they are a bit pricey now well the solution is clear - buy a Nikon/Canon/Sony body and buy only 35mm lenses until you can afford an 35mm body. People already do this. I'd rather enjoy what I am using now. If the time comes to move to a larger sensor then I will look at what there is and buy it.

Cheers,
-Gautham

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

 

[Clarkey]

Olympus can stick with 4/3rds, they just need to work on capitalizing on portability and functionality. We all could definitely use E-3 function in a 410 body... I doubt there's much argument there. m4/3rds will just be pure electronic user interface and ultra compact, while 4/3 should be ultimate form, function, performance.
--
W.L. Clark Swimm
http://www.clarkswimm.com

 

[Jonathan Demarais]

Olympus can stick with 4/3rds, they just need to work on capitalizing
on portability and functionality.

Something they need a good marketing team for. I've never seen anything at the retail level to indicate any desire on their part to position the camera that way, but the E-420 was built to take advantage of such marketing. It's odd.

--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 (IR) & Pentax K20D.
57 lenses of various types from most brands.

 

[Gregm61]

Maybe 30. I've lost count....

 

[mikeantonio]

3 Sensors technology for pro and advanced models
2 Sensors technology for advanced models
1 Sensor for entry level

and you can use the same lenses
--
je vis la nuit a versailles

 

[kilobytemachine]

I like the idea of multiple sensors.

It might achieve an effect similar to that of the foveon sensor, but possibly without the drawbacks. You might even have larger photosites for the red channel, and denser photosites for the green/blue channels to maximize channel resolving power. This is what the new Kodak colour filter pattern tries to achieve.

It'll be easier to implement without the flipping mirror in the way, and now that m43 has shown that it can be done, maybe this is a potential unique avenue for oly to explore.

I think that simply putting in a larger sensor into a regular dslr may not be the best way forward. The 3 sensor approach preserves the 4/3 standard, while increasing the total photon collection surface area, gaining many FF advantages whilst preserving all the 4/3 advantages.

Ahh... we can dream can't we? :/


Regards.

 

[Martin Frost]

As often I said, 10% more size would be good and fully compatible to the lenses and FT system.

This would be the height of Canon APS, so with 15% less megapixels they can claim "its the same MP densitiy as in the Canon E-X0", so the argument of more pixel density will falsify.

On the other hand, now with micro4/3 Oly has the big advantage to use the same sensor in FT and M4/3, so they willl perhaps not go bigger.

Whats curious is that Oly is quite successful despite people say what you say. I also hear it again and again, and the better the sensors become, the louder the people cry "much to smalll sensor".

That is the point where intelligent people regcognize that its unintelligent behavior and buy oly, and that it will be alwas easier for Oly to implement perfect quality on small sensors and more useful features on smaller sensors than doing the same thing in good quality with bigger sensors.

And also the telecentricity has some advantages, the Canon 50d concept with the spaceless microlenses will work better with telecentrical lenses and its only a question of time until oly also has those spaceless microlenses
--
cheers
Martin F.

-----------------------
Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.
If below follows a link, then its to my latest image discussion post.

 

[Jonathan Demarais]

3 Sensors technology for pro and advanced models
2 Sensors technology for advanced models
1 Sensor for entry level

and you can use the same lenses
--
je vis la nuit a versailles

Too expensive and difficult to make any lens capable of supporting three sensors unless they use beam splitters which means 1/3 the light available to each sensor. Fine for video, a no-go for DSLRs.
--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 (IR) & Pentax K20D.
57 lenses of various types from most brands.

 

[kevin wilkins]

3 Sensors technology for pro and advanced models
2 Sensors technology for advanced models
1 Sensor for entry level

and you can use the same lenses

Too expensive and difficult to make any lens capable of supporting
three sensors unless they use beam splitters which means 1/3 the
light available to each sensor. Fine for video, a no-go for DSLRs.
--

isnt the idea to have layers, not sensors. layer it up and you can still get the 2 green for a red and blue.
2 layers, use a green layer and a red/blue layer.

3 layers, arrange the layers correctly and amplify correctly and it should work. (after all sigma uses the faveon and it works)

its a nice idea, but far to complicated. as then the R&D for each camera is huge. the chip will be different in each camera to allow for the different layers and this will up costs.

better solution, implement multi layers across the complete range and enjoy. if it benefits a flagship model then it will trickle down to the low end. like the AF systems and sensors with other manufacturers.

--
if you can imagine the picture, then do all you can to make it

 

[jkrumm]

It doesn't even have to be hugely better, but definite dr and noise improvements. As everyone else moves big, Oly stays small, and it becomes a more distinct alternative, and a fairly rich system with micro 4/3's too. You'd have to spend money advertising how much better the new sensors are so camera store people start to notice, but that's it (and of course they actually would have to be better).

I'd like a sensor that could mechanically limit the highlight areas so the camera could expose for the darker parts of the picture, sort of the opposite of auto-gradation, which exposes for the light parts of the picture and then boosts the shadows, creating noise.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

 

[Martin Frost]

You mean the new Fuji sensor. Best DR.Unfortionately produced only as 1/1.6". So if the Fourthirds System would be 1/1.6", it could use the Fuji sensor with arbitrary large DR. But unfortionately we need a 4/3" sensor. So the sensor is to bug to get perfect DR
--
cheers
Martin F.

-----------------------.

 

[Louis_Dobson]

They have a nice, sensible niche at the moment - only trouble is that Panasonic are undermining it with MFT.

If I were Oly I would have gone LARGER than 35mmFF in the first place, as I've said for years (not that I would have bought it at the time, but people would). However I see Leica are now colonising that vacant niche...

And there is certainly no point in going to APS-C: that's a doomed segment.

If Oly play their cards right, what will be left is 35mmFF for people prepared to carry it, and 4/3rds for people who aren't. Sadly, OIly show no recent signs of playing their cards right, so we'll see what happens.

In the meantime, our E3 remains my favourite camera.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[photo_owl]

--

• enjoy your camera equipment -

 

[SPaul]

. . . . it continues to be POOR PRODUCT MARKETING !!

There is NO one "do-all technology" . . nor will there EVER be. We all know the plusses and minuses of the OLY cameras AND those of the competition. We chose OLY for very specific reasons. We chose NOT to own CaNikon gear for specific reasons as well. I firmly believe that my OLY gear is as good as (and in many cases better than) the competition's gear . . . all factors considered !

If OLY wants, or needs, additional market share, they simply NEED to change the way they market their products.

(When the integrated microprocessor was introduced some 30yrs ago, Intel rapidly became the industry leader . . even tho' their products were FAR from the technology leaders. They knew the value of product marketing and customer service !! They NEVER looked back !)

Since the "world began", OLY's product marketing has been simply ABISMAL !!!

Paul
Vancouver, WA . . . USA

galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/spdavis/1__todays_faves

 

[peripheralfocus]

Too expensive and difficult to make any lens capable of supporting
three sensors unless they use beam splitters which means 1/3 the
light available to each sensor. Fine for video, a no-go for DSLRs.

There were at leat two DSLRs with multiple sensors and a beam-splitting prism -- the Minolta RD-175 and RD-3000. And Foveon (before they invented their X3 layered sensor) made a 3-chip still camera, although it was not an SLR.

These cameras were not successful but the problem was not lenses or loss of light from the prism. Current Bayer filter arrays block most of the light incident on the array from reaching each photosite -- i.e. they suffer from exactly the same loss of 2/3rds of the light incident at each point on the sensor as you attributed to a prism. So there's no real difference there.

The problem with multi-sensor cameras is size and cost -- a 3-chip E-system DSLR would be the size of a medium format camera, and it's extremely expensive to include 3 sensors and a prism, and align the whole apparatus properly.

 

[Vision3]

if Olympus were to do something that foolish, they'd be finished... 'me too' companies don't last long.

and frankly, if you want to get a camera with a FF35 sensor, there are enough to choose from.

So, please take this overdone, uninformed nonsense elsewhere. It is getting so old...

--
Vision3 (aka., Rich)

• Make the World a Better Place; Go Shoot Something.

 

[sparklite]

I think that you're right. This is the first time I've admited it but I agree with you. I don't think they'll get rid of 4/3rds but I think they'll have to come out with a new flagship line of camera with a new format. The E-3 may as well become the new mid-level camera. I hate to say it since i own one and I'm not a pro, just a serious enthusiast that does make some money with his camera. I don't earn enough from my photography to justify an upgrade or reinvestment in glass.

iain
--
http://sparklite.shutterchance.com

 

[MontereyBayPhotog]

I just got done using a 1d MkIII w/300 f2.8 for a whole weekend shooting the Monterey Jazz Festival. Lots of night work. It was certainly sharp and I got some great results at ASA 800 and so so results at 1600. But what a beast to lug around. Almost 9 pounds. Certainly attracted attention. Of course I needed to lug a monopod also. It was only sharp as long as the auto-focus was working, and it didn't on more than several occasions. This 1d MkIII was not completely right.

I set the 1d MkIII w/300 next to my E-510 w/50-200. Pretty humorous. At 300mm equivalent the 50-200 is an f3.2 lens. What a shocker!!!!! The weight and size difference is unbelievable. I think the 50-200 is as sharp as the 300. At least its very close. I love my Oly setup!

For low light FF is clearly the winner. For everything else, I say 4/3 w/Oly lenses rock!

--
2 x E-510, 14-54, 14-42, 40-150, 50-200, FL-50

Imagine,

Alan