Truly a different sensor in E-3?

[vlatko]

first the E-510 manual specifications state the sensor has approx.
11,800,000 (11.8 million) with approx. 10,000,000 (10 million)
effective pixels.

Confirmed. It isn't on the website, but that's what the manual says!

Funny, yeah. Never thought to check the manual.

OTOH, olympus-europa.com says that the total number of pixels in 510 is app. 10.9 MP.

i can only think that the extra pixels are outside of the 4/3rds
sensor size, and therefore are not implemented. this would make sense
to me.

Yep. But why so many extra?

Exactly. That's the million dollar question.

For a moment there I thought that L10 uses the same trick for different formats that their TZ3 compact does ( http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/ ) - TZ3 has something like 1.5 MP more total pixels than the active area. But no, the width of the image in L10 never changes.

Besides, now that I checked, E-400 with its Kodak sensor has the total number of 11.2 MP, while the active area is 10 MP.

Aaaah, as so many forum speculations, this one's come to naught.

But I still don't give up on the official statement a year ago that E-3 will be better than E-400 in every regard. )))

 

[fiebl]

Erik,

if the additional pixel of the sensor are due to a possible double use in a 3:2 format cam (EVIL) than I think this cam will be imminent.

With Panasonics producing their own sensors even for small quantitiy cams (you mentioned the LX1/2 yourself) I do not think they would spend money on a sensor with additional pixels on a longish time frame.

Sensot technology is moving on too fast for that. So, expect the EVIL within a few weeks or perhaps months or never (with this sensor).

And frankly, when I handled the L10 with the 14-150mm at IFA last week I did not see any point in having the mirror in there at all. A larger fully movable LCD (perhaps with some unfolding light shade, like in the old days - or a black cloth over the head!) would be perfect.

Regards, Guenter

 

[CatStevens11]

Cheers
mark
--
( ) Always open for new ideas

 

[paulbod2]

http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/e510/
http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/l10/high_image02.html#livemos
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/episode9_02.html

They look to me very similar, might be a :
4224x2794 = 11.8mp (20x13.1mm)
that allows :
4224x2376 = 10mp 16:9 (22.9 diagonal)
3888x2592 = 10mp 3:2 (22.1 diagonal)
and of course :
3648x2736 = 10mp 4:3 (21.5 diagonal)

Maybe is possible from the raw to have the full image.

 

[BJL]

Most of this discussion is now moot thanks to your two discoveries:

• the 11.8MP total MP figure applies to the sensors in all three "10MP Live MOS" models
• The JCIA rules for counting effective pixels allow counts of 10.0MP and 10.1MP for the same sensor.

Nicely confirming my basic skeptical claim that the evidence offered for a second sensor was rather weak and unreliable.

Well, there's more. Camera makers can include or not include the ring pixels in how they calculate the "effective" pixels. Your argument is totally torpedoed by fudge factor that the JCIA allows.

No. I'm merely pointing out that you were operating on wrong premises which pretty much invalidates your argument.

What wrong premisses: my argument was that the different published numbers for "effective pixels" and such are not strong evidence of a second "10MP" Live MOS sensor. Your point about slack in the JCIA rules for counting effective pixels is another argument for the same conclusion, merely changing it from one type of error (being wrong) to another (being imprecise).

And that 0.1MP different in effective pixel counts was after all the sole original evidence that lead to the "two 10MP sensors" hypothesis. When the original evidence offered for a claim is completely discredited, it is surely time to subject the claim to even more skeptical scrutiny, not to cast around for other arguments as to why "it might still be true anyway".

I said:

I am simply arguing the skeptical (not cynical) position that the evidence offered for the existence of such a sensor is inadequate.

Jay said:

Of course it was inadequate. But the apparent discrepencies did give reason to question/wonder/speculate.

And also gave reason to make far more skeptical scrutiny of the proposed evidence than many people did, probably motivated by a hope for a new and better sensor.

For instance, get this. The E-330 and the DMC-L1 are supposed to have the same sensor. The L1 manual says the sensor has 7,940,000 total sensor pixels. But dcraw creates files from the E-330 that are slightly larger at 7,962,500 pixels and FastStone reports an E-330 .orf file as having 8,024,544 pixels. So the "effective" pixels of the 7.5Mp sensor are possibly as many as 8Mp, and the total number of pixels is really unknown.

More evidence that small differences in a few numbers in spec. sheets is very little evidence of two slightly different sensors.

Another example: the pixel counts stated for the new Sony IMX021 sensor, for the D300 and for the Sony A700 are all slightly different, but I am fairly sure that these spec's all refer to the same sensor.

 

[Thomas_A]

There is just a typo on the spec on the web for Oly E_510/410. Since both manuals of E-410 and E-510 specify a sensor size of 11.8 MP, it is highly unlikely that there is a different sensor in L10. This also suggests that the E-3 will have the same sensor.

 

[Rriley]

another view
here L10 sensor looks just like the 510 and carriage



--
Riley

real men get zippo haircuts

 

[Jay Turberville]

Most of this discussion is now moot thanks to your two discoveries:

• the 11.8MP total MP figure applies to the sensors in all three

"10MP Live MOS" models

• The JCIA rules for counting effective pixels allow counts of 10.0MP

and 10.1MP for the same sensor.

... observation about the 11.8Mp being in the user manuals.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=24734864

Nicely confirming my basic skeptical claim that the evidence offered
for a second sensor was rather weak and unreliable.

Sure mine too.

Well, there's more. Camera makers can include or not include the ring pixels in how they calculate the "effective" pixels. Your argument is totally torpedoed by fudge factor that the JCIA allows.

No. I'm merely pointing out that you were operating on wrong premises which pretty much invalidates your argument.

What wrong premisses: my argument was that the different published
numbers for "effective pixels"

No. Go back and read what you wrote. You said the 10.1Mp number was "wrong" and that because it was wrong doubt is cast upon the 11.8Mp number as well. As it turns out, both numbers were quite right. And it was showing both numbers were right that actually puts the big holes in the likelihood that the L10 sensor is significantly different. Or at least makes the point that pixel counts are no indicator of a different sensor.

rules for counting effective pixels is another argument for the same
conclusion, merely changing it from one type of error (being wrong)
to another (being imprecise).

No. It merely explains why there can be some amount of expected deviation between what is called "effective pixels." And from that you can't deduce anything about the 11.8Mp sensor pixels being wrong. And it turns out (so far as we know) that that number was quite correct.

And that 0.1MP different in effective pixel counts was after all the
sole original evidence that lead to the "two 10MP sensors"
hypothesis.

No. The 11.8Mp number was also there. And there was the whole bit about the photodiodes being unchanged in size. Something that doesn't jibe with reported observations of noise.

When the original evidence offered for a claim is
completely discredited, it is surely time to subject the claim to
even more skeptical scrutiny, not to cast around for other arguments
as to why "it might still be true anyway".

Who did that? Like I said. I simply pointed out that premises that you based your arguments on was flawed.

I said:

I am simply arguing the skeptical (not cynical) position that the evidence offered for the existence of such a sensor is inadequate.

Jay said:

Of course it was inadequate. But the apparent discrepencies did give reason to question/wonder/speculate.

And also gave reason to make far more skeptical scrutiny of the
proposed evidence than many people did, probably motivated by a hope
for a new and better sensor.

Sure. But I'm not really discussing "many people." "Many people" do all sorts of silly things and I often let it go. The sillier it is, the more I'm inclined to let it go. It is those things that seem reasonable but really aren't that I tend to gravitate toward. I'm all for being skeptical and even more in favor of close scrutiny.

More evidence that small differences in a few numbers in spec. sheets
is very little evidence of two slightly different sensors.

Sure. But the 10.1 vs 10.0 number never counted for much to me. It was the 11.8Mp number that piqued my interest.

Another example: the pixel counts stated for the new Sony IMX021
sensor, for the D300 and for the Sony A700 are all slightly
different, but I am fairly sure that these spec's all refer to the
same sensor.

But again. Which pixel counts are they referring to? If it is "effective pixels" we can certainly expect some variance.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com