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

[addlightness]

and together with your 12/2.0, revisit touristic venues and spend a day in the sun capturing those tourist portraits.

 

[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.

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".

AMD has nothing to with Intel, your lack of ability to follow linear logic is generally highlighted as a problem with today's generation from an education perspective. The statement about Intel is that we haven't nearly gone anywhere near the limits of what microchips are capable of and that is as certifiable as watching the tick-tock cycle of Intel product releases which continue unabated.

AMD's inability to innovate and getting stuck on reducing the size of their chip wafer technology while improving CPU clock speeds is a product of AMD's poor management and innovation strategy that has seen it near bankruptcy for years. AMD is a company in a holding pattern waiting to be acquired by another company such as anyone including Apple that has more dollars than sense who want to break the IP theft pattern that goes on when your most important chip manufacturer is also your number 1 rival. But that's a side argument and a red herring.

The general sense of apathy and saying mediocre performance is all anyone here could wish for is the problem to begin with. We're not anywhere near the capability of what we can do with Four Thirds sensors. It just so happens that Olympus/Panasonic are the AMD to Sony's Intel.

As to my medium format back again linear logic would help along with a robust reading and comprehension strategy. I am well aware we are not playing in the same market as Mamiya, Leaf, Hasselblad and others and that these significant improvements come continuously in cameras that cost $20000 and up, but one could reasonably expect a substantial sensor improvement that is actually meaningful to improving image quality at least every now and then. That's just common logic.

 

[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".

AMD has nothing to with Intel, your lack of ability to follow linear logic is generally highlighted as a problem with today's generation from an education perspective. The statement about Intel is that we haven't nearly gone anywhere near the limits of what microchips are capable of and that is as certifiable as watching the tick-tock cycle of Intel product releases which continue unabated.

Thanks for the insult. "The statement about Intel ..." - How about you let me define what I said about Intel, and you do whatever it is you do. Deal? Pity you missed the point of the example that I'll bet everyone else got. Looks like we've identified your lack of ability to follow a conversation, or understand simple concepts.

AMD's inability to innovate and getting stuck on reducing the size of their chip wafer technology while improving CPU clock speeds is a product of AMD's poor management and innovation strategy that has seen it near bankruptcy for years. AMD is a company in a holding pattern waiting to be acquired by another company such as anyone including Apple that has more dollars than sense who want to break the IP theft pattern that goes on when your most important chip manufacturer is also your number 1 rival. But that's a side argument and a red herring.

I agree, nothing in your response has anything to do with what I wrote.

The general sense of apathy and saying mediocre performance is all anyone here could wish for is the problem to begin with. We're not anywhere near the capability of what we can do with Four Thirds sensors. It just so happens that Olympus/Panasonic are the AMD to Sony's Intel.

There's that "we" again. Huzzah! I think you might have started to pick up on my example of Intel and AMD.

As to my medium format back again linear logic would help along with a robust reading and comprehension strategy. I am well aware we are not playing in the same market as Mamiya, Leaf, Hasselblad and others but one could reasonably expect a substantial sensor improvement that is actually meaningful to improving image quality at least every now and then. That's just common logic.

So basically, you like to puff yourself up, you can't respond to questions that make you uncomfortable, and you have a deep seated need to rail on about this topic for unknown reasons.

That's just common logic. Got it. Ignored.

 

[Hiphopapotamus]

I've addressed your points they were illogical and incoherent and I've addressed why they are above. We're not talking about selling chips either we're talking about a complete and utter inability to do anything meaningful in terms of sensor output development for the best part of 5 years. This is only equaled by Canon's inability to improve its own sensors over this same time period.

The fact that I have to address your point directly when it is totally irrelevant to the discussion is humorous at best and inane at worst... We're not talking about competitors selling dark secrets to each other about smoke and mirrors we're talking about the development of sensors.

 

[third son]

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

 

[rsmithgi]

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.

--
radsaq
https://plus.google.com/+KevinRadloff/photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/radsaq/

no statistically meaningful sensor improvements in right about 5 years now.

This is simply not true. I would classify a 25% increase in resolution as statistically significant.

with various bells and whistles attached firmly too it.

This is the dismissive attitude that riles people up. It is myopic, condescending, and silly.

To Mr. Caldwell, these statements turn the discussion from interesting to ridiculous.

 

[Hiphopapotamus]

Maybe its my use of language, but bells and whistles is an idiom that comes from selling things with various features attached. It is British in origin so you might not understand it from an American perspective.

You can either have the standard edition or you can buy the Rolls Royce with all of the trappings of luxury attached. I think that the Pinto serves me just fine, I don't need the Rolls Royce. Likewise it's akin to choosing the option of wearing your pants (shorts) with belts and braces (suspenders) sometimes these extra luxury items are not nescessary in life.

Does that clearly explain things? or let me explain it from the point of a New Yorker. You can either have a 12inch pizza with plain cheese, or you can have the Big New Yorker.

Get it?

 

[samtheman2014]

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

Well it is different in that it has PDAF added to the base senor .With regard to RAW image quality other than additional processing there will be no difference between it and say the Pen F. By the way the GH4 and E-M1 share the same 16mp base Panasonic sensor so PDAF alone is not the indicator of a unique sensor, adpated sensor is a better description.

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 no discernable difference in the RAW output of the E-M1 II compared to the Pen F and even compared to the E-M1 there is nowhere near a stop difference. Any small differences that do exist are more likely to be a consequence of additional built-in NR { even to the RAW file } and processing

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.

From a performance perspective the E-M1 II is a stellar camera. It has been upgraded in almost every area from video to AF

--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

--
Jim I am Sam I am not

 

[rsmithgi]

Maybe its my use of language, but bells and whistles is an idiom that comes from selling things with various features attached. It is British in origin so you might not understand it from an American perspective.

You can either have the standard edition or you can buy the Rolls Royce with all of the trappings of luxury attached. I think that the Pinto serves me just fine, I don't need the Rolls Royce. Likewise it's akin to choosing the option of wearing your pants (shorts) with belts and braces (suspenders) sometimes these extra luxury items are not nescessary in life.

Does that clearly explain things? or let me explain it from the point of a New Yorker. You can either have a 12inch pizza with plain cheese, or you can have the Big New Yorker.

Get it?

I understand the idiom just fine, thank you. It just doesn't fit in this instance. Would the Pinto be just fine compared to a Land Rover as well? How about if the intended use was off road and not a city commute?

Perhaps if you referred to them as "features that are not needed for my type of photography", you get less push back. Of course, you already know that and your use of language is intentional. Many of your posts are needlessly dismissive (in my opinion, of course).

Get it?

 

[Hiphopapotamus]

I honestly just think people like to perceive things that aren't there.

 

[petreluk]

[No message]

 

[rsmithgi]

I honestly just think people like to perceive things that aren't there.

And I honestly believe that some people are so egocentric that they are simply unable to understand how other people perceive their words.

 

[samtheman2014]

I am sure embroidery is soothing and you can make lovely images but man the exposure times are a killer

Loading…

designwrld.com

 

[samtheman2014]

Not having to buy another camera body again.

Do what quite a few here seem to , pop these on look at images and then claim multi stop advances in image quality







--
Jim I am Sam I am not

 

[rsmithgi]

I am extremely thankful that the OP is in the minority. Otherwise, sales of cameras would plummet. All the camera makers (MFT, APS-C and FF) would go out of business and it would only be a matter of time before all of us would be using a smart phone for all photography.

There are new models in every segment, every year. NONE of them have seen significant image quality improvements in recent years.

 

[john isaacs]

Not having to buy another camera body again.

Gee, I though the new 20mp sensors, and 20mp with cross PDAF, was new technology. They are certainly missing on my current suite of Olympus and Panasonic bodies. And thus, will have to buy a camera body to get it.

 

[radsaq]

AMD has nothing to with Intel, your lack of ability to follow linear logic is generally highlighted as a problem with today's generation from an education perspective. The statement about Intel is that we haven't nearly gone anywhere near the limits of what microchips are capable of and that is as certifiable as watching the tick-tock cycle of Intel product releases which continue unabated.

Except Intel's tick-tock cycle has already been broken, so that's not a very good example.

The general sense of apathy and saying mediocre performance is all anyone here could wish for is the problem to begin with. We're not anywhere near the capability of what we can do with Four Thirds sensors. It just so happens that Olympus/Panasonic are the AMD to Sony's Intel.

The point people are trying to make is that larger sensor development in general has stalled since 2012. The best 4/3" sensors today are still where they were before in relation to the best APS-C and FF sensors when the E-M5 came out.

1" and smaller sensors probably saw more gains as they caught up to where they should be in relation to the larger sizes. (And for people who are surprised at how good 1" sensors are compared to 4/3" sensors: that's because 1" is only a little bit smaller. There's no magic.)

As to my medium format back again linear logic would help along with a robust reading and comprehension strategy. I am well aware we are not playing in the same market as Mamiya, Leaf, Hasselblad and others and that these significant improvements come continuously in cameras that cost $20000 and up, but one could reasonably expect a substantial sensor improvement that is actually meaningful to improving image quality at least every now and then. That's just common logic.

No, it's not. There's a finite amount of light being captured. At some point, you bump into the limits of semiconductor efficiency and further gains will have to be computational. (Or, since we're talking about Bayer sensors, switching that out for a different sensor layout that has a higher maximum efficiency.)

 

[Hiphopapotamus]

It hasn't been broken in so much as a third step in the process has been added. Either way the point is that Intel is still on track with Moore's law and nothing of significance has changed regarding that. We still haven't reached saturation point yet, or reached the point of heading past silicone to carbon based organic chips.

Since sensors have "stalled" Sony and Nikon have since seen fit to release cameras such as the Nikon D610, DF, D4S, D810, D750, and D5, while Sony have released a whole bunch of awesome mirrorless cameras along that way also as well another set of update to their DSLRs.

Fuji have released a whole bunch of new APS-C cameras and derivative technology.

Panasonic and Olympus meanwhile are still working on sensor technology which has a derivative in one of the cameras I am shooting with still today called the OM-D E-M5 with relevant baked in firmware updates and bits and pieces added on such as DFD and PDAF optimisation.

But really... we still haven't gone anywhere innovative in terms of a new or more impressive sensor in any meaningful way that will help my own progress as a landscape photographer and this is where the fun starts.

I don't need to buy another Four Thirds camera ever again.

 

[Greynerd]

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.

For all that will you be able to see any significant differences in the images coming from the more and lesser gadget featured latest wizzo state of the art until the next one comes along camera?

You have to wonder how many people actually need any of theses things. I suppose every generation of camera invalidates the previous kit or those who want our money would have us believe it true.

In some ways it is a great relief having an excuse to break out of the never ending GAS spiral and Hiphopapotamus has a point which was humorous anyway.

 

[rsmithgi]

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.

For all that will you be able to see any significant differences in the images coming from the more and lesser gadget featured latest wizzo state of the art until the next one comes along camera?

Some of those directly impact image quality and some do not. Some make the process more enjoyable. That is the part that gets forgotten in this endless, pixel peeping debates.

Photography is a hobby because I enjoy it. I will not trade an increase in image quality for a significant decrease in enjoyability, if my image quality is already good enough.