The best thing to do with a lack of new sensor technology?

[radsaq]

Surely this is an interesting subject to discuss without trying to shoot down the poster due to some earlier antagonism that is now dredged up?

I'm not sure it really counts as a "discussion" if the OP's response to everything is "I don't care, it's just a box to me."

I think that's what other posters are complaining about.

 

[rsmithgi]

.... film cameras? Manufacturers kept selling updated models and consumers still had GAS for them.... and most consumers chose to keep using the same 'sensor' with every model they bought.

There is so much more to a camera than its sensor.

 

[rsmithgi]

No doubt sensor development has slowed down (at least for the M4/3 mount format). There is not a lot of early take up of the 20mp sensor and what there is seems to be resulting in expensive camera bodies. Panasonic seems to be trying another angle and simply dropping the AA filter as another form of image improvement.

The same is true for the APS C sensors. The D7200 is just not a significant upgrade over the D7100. And that was mostly a resolution bump from 16mp to 24 mp.

MFT and APS C have been tracking each other pretty closely from 2010 until now:

MFT: 12mp -> 16 mp -> 20 mp

APSC: 16mp -> 24mp

APS C has been sitting at 24mp for 4 years.

 

[SpinOne]

No doubt sensor development has slowed down (at least for the M4/3 mount format). There is not a lot of early take up of the 20mp sensor and what there is seems to be resulting in expensive camera bodies. Panasonic seems to be trying another angle and simply dropping the AA filter as another form of image improvement.

The same is true for the APS C sensors. The D7200 is just not a significant upgrade over the D7100. And that was mostly a resolution bump from 16mp to 24 mp.

MFT and APS C have been tracking each other pretty closely from 2010 until now:

MFT: 12mp -> 16 mp -> 20 mp

APSC: 16mp -> 24mp

APS C has been sitting at 24mp for 4 years.

Yep... many 35mm sensors were stuck at 20-24mp for years as well.

The higher resolution 35mm sensors did not do much for other factors (like noise and DR). In addition, wringing the improvements out of those higher resolution sensors usually requires exceptionally high-quality lenses, a stable platform, a subject that is not moving or strobes.

Even then, high resolution only matters in a small percentage of situations -- basically, those where the DR is greater than 13 stops, but does not exceed 14 stops; situations where you can't do HDR; and/or print sizes that are large enough to notice the higher resolution, but not large enough that your subject will be standing far enough from the print that they will notice.

So, if you don't need all the new whatsimawhoozits in new cameras, you're in luck! High quality camera bodies are affordable. M43 lenses are outstanding and have many good options. And you can spend your hard-earned dollars on plane tickets or retirement funds instead of camera bodies.

 

[Max Iso]

Not having to buy another camera body again.

I used a D300 for a good while recently, which is actually inferior to my GX7's sensor performance. For many, features are as important as the sensor. But if you don't need them then yes, luck is on your side.

 

[Hen3ry]

Not having to buy another camera body again.

Yes, because no one ever needs:

- better AF
- better EVFs
- better stabilization
- better LCDs
- faster continuous shooting rates
- longer battery life
- better metering
- more video codecs and options
- features like high resolution multishot
- changes in ergonomics
- improved weather/dust sealing

If you don't need any of those things, that's great. That doesn't mean that no one ever benefits from camera iterations.

By the way, sensors have been largely mature for a few years now; and the higher resolution sensors involve their own trade-offs. You might want to get used to minimal sensor changes.

…BUT let's not forget there HAVE been sensor developments. It's the old story, though, different manufacturers leapfrog. One moves ahead, then the other, and so on.

As you say, though, sensors -- at lest as we know them -- are pretty mature so no big improvements can be expected on current lines.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Surely this is an interesting subject to discuss without trying to shoot down the poster due to some earlier antagonism that is now dredged up?

I'm not sure it really counts as a "discussion" if the OP's response to everything is "I don't care, it's just a box to me."

I think that's what other posters are complaining about.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

No doubt sensor development has slowed down (at least for the M4/3 mount format). There is not a lot of early take up of the 20mp sensor and what there is seems to be resulting in expensive camera bodies. Panasonic seems to be trying another angle and simply dropping the AA filter as another form of image improvement.

The same is true for the APS C sensors. The D7200 is just not a significant upgrade over the D7100. And that was mostly a resolution bump from 16mp to 24 mp.

MFT and APS C have been tracking each other pretty closely from 2010 until now:

MFT: 12mp -> 16 mp -> 20 mp

APSC: 16mp -> 24mp

APS C has been sitting at 24mp for 4 years.

Thank you, I hvae not closely followed sensor population densities. I remember the 12mp aps-c being regarded as pretty good then the 16mp came out and was regarded as trumping everthing. By this account in reasoning a 24mp sensor might seem as good as it gets.

I suppose there will always be room for improvement, in end we might find it useful to draw a line in personal expectations and and decide that there is a point where images might not be ulimately perfect but certainly good enough for our own requirements.

In M4/3 16mp seems good enough for me. I can see that when I zoom in to the capture that the resolution detail is often lost when I am wanting more but I suspect that if I had more capability I would soon start to again find the point where my new capability would not be good enough.

Therefore I have to work around my equipment limitations including lenses made for the purpose and remember the days when I knew that 2mp sensors provided me with images that I was proud of.

 

[453C]

Not having to buy another camera body again.

Things will change when the Panasonic-Fuji organic global shutter arrives, then there will be a new toy to play with that should make a worthwhile difference.

Rumour has it that Fuji may get there first in 2018, but as usual, don't hold your breath, just keep chugging on with what works for you now and maybe spend any surplus dollars on improving the lens collection.

In my case the E-P5 works perfectly for all that I need and do, so that's my body until something of interest appears, none so far.

Regards..... Guy

 

[Tom Caldwell]

No doubt sensor development has slowed down (at least for the M4/3 mount format). There is not a lot of early take up of the 20mp sensor and what there is seems to be resulting in expensive camera bodies. Panasonic seems to be trying another angle and simply dropping the AA filter as another form of image improvement.

The same is true for the APS C sensors. The D7200 is just not a significant upgrade over the D7100. And that was mostly a resolution bump from 16mp to 24 mp.

MFT and APS C have been tracking each other pretty closely from 2010 until now:

MFT: 12mp -> 16 mp -> 20 mp

APSC: 16mp -> 24mp

APS C has been sitting at 24mp for 4 years.

Yep... many 35mm sensors were stuck at 20-24mp for years as well.

The higher resolution 35mm sensors did not do much for other factors (like noise and DR). In addition, wringing the improvements out of those higher resolution sensors usually requires exceptionally high-quality lenses, a stable platform, a subject that is not moving or strobes.

This is an interesting point. Common wisdom has been that more megapixels were always good until the megapixel race on sliver-sized sensors became an embarrassment and the issue was quietly dropped along with the stickers screaming the number of megapixels inside.

Later the larger sensors have been catching up but a while ago dpreview pointed out (at the time in respect of the Canon 5D RS) that hugely capable high resolution multiple megapixel large sensors were not a sure way of getting great images. This was because as you have noted that limitations in the gear used will start showing up - worse - that the (lack of) capability of the photographer will show up in technical errors that a lesser megapixel sensor would simply wash away in "fuzz" when looked at closely.

Of course Noddy and his brand new wonder camera bought at an unmentionable price would quickly blame the gear and not the operator and be first in the queue for the next improved sensor that would be released.

Even then, high resolution only matters in a small percentage of situations -- basically, those where the DR is greater than 13 stops, but does not exceed 14 stops; situations where you can't do HDR; and/or print sizes that are large enough to notice the higher resolution, but not large enough that your subject will be standing far enough from the print that they will notice.

So, if you don't need all the new whatsimawhoozits in new cameras, you're in luck! High quality camera bodies are affordable. M43 lenses are outstanding and have many good options. And you can spend your hard-earned dollars on plane tickets or retirement funds instead of camera bodies.

 

[lcubed11]

Not having to buy another camera body again.

have you considering taking up cubism as a substitute art form??

 

[Hiphopapotamus]

Surely this is an interesting subject to discuss without trying to shoot down the poster due to some earlier antagonism that is now dredged up?

I'm not sure it really counts as a "discussion" if the OP's response to everything is "I don't care, it's just a box to me."

I think that's what other posters are complaining about.

 

[JaKing]

The sensor in the E-M1 MkII is totally new, and completely different from any other 20 MPx mFTs sensor.

Straight from the horse's mouth today. He even quoted a chip number that I didn't catch.

Anyway, the specs such as readout speed, focus array, etc, speak for themselves.

It appears that the noise is about 1 stop less at any ISO, and the DR is about 1 stop better too. These are massive improvements in the current development environment - it's not like we are back in 2003 ...

There is a lot more to come with this camera, and my thoughts about it being 'overpowered' by a factor of 3x-5x what it currently needs were also ratified.

 

[SpinOne]

In fact all of these side arguments are nothing more than red herrings which don't address the fact that nothing significant has changed in the last 5 years....

That's one way to look at it.

Another is that not everyone does the same exact work as you do, therefore not everyone needs to focus on a very small number of parameters. As a result, you're ignoring genuine improvements because they're not relevant to you. The problem there is that you leave out the critical "for me" context.

Plus:

- You're ignoring that the "status quo" is really, really good.

- You're ignoring or unaware that the latest hottest highest-res sensors are actually specialty equipment often confused as $3500 consumer cameras.

- You're blatantly ignoring the vast improvement in M43 lenses since 2011.

- You can already improve some of those sensor parameters via HDR processing.

- In order to make the most of an improved sensor, you will need to use more stable tripods, expose more precisely, use top-notch lenses, use highly consistent strobes, etc.

- You don't quite seem aware that the higher the resolution, the sooner diffraction kicks in, which mitigates some of the advantages of increasing the resolution.

- Many of the parameters you're fretting about don't matter unless you are making 20" x 30" prints.

You're not seriously telling me this is the best we can do?

Yes. That is exactly what we're telling you.

The current sensors are very close to the maximum resolution, dynamic range, noise, and color rendition capacities that can be squeezed out of a 4/3 Bayer sensor.

We've been telling you this for about a week. Try to let it sink in this time.

 

[Donald B]

well i just ordered a new em5mk2 yesterday for a couple of reasons and none of them were the sensor performance.

1: got the silver body (my em5mk1 is black)

2: streams live hdmi out which is awsome (em5 only av) for studio work.

3: high res for macro

4: better evf, even though it wasnt a big gain

5: wanted a new camera

cheers don

 

[Donald B]

The sensor in the E-M1 MkII is totally new, and completely different from any other 20 MPx mFTs sensor.

Straight from the horse's mouth today. He even quoted a chip number that I didn't catch.

Anyway, the specs such as readout speed, focus array, etc, speak for themselves.

It appears that the noise is about 1 stop less at any ISO, and the DR is about 1 stop better too. These are massive improvements in the current development environment - it's not like we are back in 2003 ...

I think its just better NR nothing to do with sensor.

There is a lot more to come with this camera, and my thoughts about it being 'overpowered' by a factor of 3x-5x what it currently needs were also ratified.

 

[453C]

The sensor in the E-M1 MkII is totally new, and completely different from any other 20 MPx mFTs sensor.

Play the man not the ball.

Straight from the horse's mouth today. He even quoted a chip number that I didn't catch.

To me, a box of cameras is light ...

Anyway, the specs such as readout speed, focus array, etc, speak for themselves.

I don't care.

It appears that the noise is about 1 stop less at any ISO, and the DR is about 1 stop better too. These are massive improvements in the current development environment - it's not like we are back in 2003 ...

I mean, a box is like a camera in light ...

There is a lot more to come with this camera, and my thoughts about it being 'overpowered' by a factor of 3x-5x what it currently needs were also ratified.

Wait ... a camera is just a box of light. Yeah, that's it.

Pure speculation on my part, but I agree with Tom that what we're seeing smacks of business concerns limiting MFT sensors. No matter what the OP thinks, there has been progress, but it's easy to look at overall sensor development and wonder why MFT seems to have missed out on some advances.

OTOH, if I felt that MFT sensors were limiting me, I'd find a new format that better met my needs. Creating multiple threads about how limiting I found MFT sensors wouldn't seem very helpful or productive, but I'm sure I'm missing the point again.

 

[Hiphopapotamus]

The current sensors are very close to the maximum resolution, dynamic range, noise, and color rendition capacities that can be squeezed out of a 4/3 Bayer sensor.

We've been telling you this for about a week. Try to let it sink in this time.

OK I'm well aware of the limitations of Moore's law and many other factors I'm a qualified IT professional among other hats but let me use an analogy that even Intel is finding ways to keep moving chip performance forward as is Sony in terms of cameras sensors that are used in nearly every top performing DSLR and mirrorless cameras.

I also have a medium format camera that can take the best performing medium format digital backs at the cost of $20,000 dollars with a Graflex back and a Leaf sensor. I realise we're not playing in that ball park and I have no intention of playing in that ball park in pretty well ever at least until someone offers me one for free.

The thing is, this isn't the best we can do and apologizing for things just because you happen to be a brand tragic loyalist is just plain stupid by any other mans definition.

 

[453C]

The current sensors are very close to the maximum resolution, dynamic range, noise, and color rendition capacities that can be squeezed out of a 4/3 Bayer sensor.

We've been telling you this for about a week. Try to let it sink in this time.

OK I'm well aware of the limitations of Moore's law and many other factors I'm a qualified IT professional among other hats but let me use an analogy that even Intel is finding ways to keep moving chip performance forward as is Sony in terms of cameras sensors that are used in nearly every top performing DSLR and mirrorless cameras.

Sony doesn't have to sell chips to anyone, and they certainly don't have to sell any of their best technology to competitors. Intel isn't doing much business with AMD, are they?

I also have a medium format camera that can take the best performing medium format digital backs at the cost of $20,000 dollars with a Graflex back and a Leaf sensor. I realise we're not playing in that ball park and I have no intention of playing in that ball park in pretty well ever at least until someone offers me one for free.

Um ... we're impressed?

The thing is, this isn't the best we can do and apologizing for things just because you happen to be a brand tragic loyalist is just plain stupid by any other mans definition.

Who's "we"? I'm not cranking out sensor wafers in my kitchen; anyone else?

Who's being a "brand tragic loyalist"?

For that matter, please define "brand tragic loyalist".

 

[Sergey Borachev]

is to save your ammunition. Stop buying any lens as well as camera, in case you have to switch system.