YI releases much-needed firmware update for Yi-M1 mirrorless camera

Yes of course the first thing I did was the update. Amazon is very customer friendly when it comes to returns, luckily.

To me, it's no moral. Yes, companies steal from each other, but they try me make it look different at least. I hope the Chinese government start respecting and enforce international intellectual property laws!

@Richard Kwon
International intellectual property laws? Leica is majority-owned by Huawei, a Chinese company. I would think Huawei knows how to protect their IP rights in China better than you do.
And what makes you think Leica has an enforceable patent, trademark or copyright claim here? Knockoffs are legal and an integral part of free market competition anywhere in the world.
As for morality, well, first of all, you can't pay bills with moral points. Secondly and more importantly, there is nothing immoral here. This is done all the time. Grocery stores sell their generic brands in strikingly similar looking packaging right next to the name brand. Grow up kiddo.

@Richard Kwon
Are you saying the Y1 is not a real camera? That's news to me. If not, what are you trying to say, kiddo? Besides growing up (as advised above), please grown a brain so you can make pertinent comments. Don't start wasting everyone's time with random nonsense. I think you have embarrassed yourself enough for one day.

a6000 is more than 3 years old, so it's obvioulsy dropped down in price. It's MSRP was $650, just like E-M10 III, but modern Sony cameras are much more expensive. And M100 is just from another league, it's very basic camera and can't be compared to those two.

Only few sub-$1000 lenses can render more than 10 megapixels. In the center the higher resolution sensor can give some benefits. It's total cowpoo to say that megapixels make a difference on FullHD screen, because 1080p is only about 2 megapixels.

4 times more pixels can be somehow justified when downscaling (in this case 8 Mp).

That being said, there are many other things that affect the image quality. In DPreview forum, hardly no-one is interested in megapixels. Still YI-M1 is an interesting product because it offers the maximum MP at very reasonable price.

16mp is NOT minimum wage. More like a fancy car and house, yes fancier is always better however

@ jefftan,

No you can't. Your 1080p television only maps to about a 2mp sensor.

4K video only uses about 8mp of sensor area.

Amazing what advertising BS can do.

TEdolph

Jefftan has a point b/c bayer sensors make a 12 MP camera feel like 3 MP image on a monitor (doesn't matter if it is a pc or tv).
If each three sensors make a pixel, than a 4k monitor equals to a 48 MP image.
You can also see the difference, science says thre's a difference.

@kahveisteyen Very good point. The camera manufacturers over state their display pixels, too, by calling them dots, which are actually sub-pixels. You have to divide by three to find out the actual number of pixels.

@Jefftan I don't think you should look for sense there, clearly 4K means 4 thousand (it's in hte goddamn name) So UHD is 3840 x 2160 (the x stands for multiplication) which is 8294400 pixels that is 8,29 mega (mega = million) pixels. That's why cameras with more than this many pixels either crop, read out from every other pixel line or downsize from 6K (6000x3333 more or less). Sorry for being so blunt but maybe the guy that posted this gem will see it too.

@kaveisteyan,

Even if we accept your it takes three "dots" to make a picture element a 4K monitor still only maps to 24mp, not 48.

And this is non-sense anyway. All cameras with more than 8mp use less than the full sensor for 4K imaging.

Nobody is using the full sensor, not even 48mp cameras.

Tedolph

Jefftan, you're such a troll. Or maybe you're just ignorant. A 1080p TV only displays 1920 pixels in width and 1080 pixels in height, which is only 2,073,600 pixels (2 megapixels).

What is interesting is that he thinks he can see the difference between a 16mp sensor and a 24mp sensor on a 2mp television screen even though they are probably both compressed JPEG images!

That is the Power of Positive Thinking!

Tedolph

Sorry, you admitted it yourself. They are still cropping the 3:2 sensor down to 16:9. That is about 1/3 of the pixels not being used. So even a 22mp sensor is still only using about 14mp.

Bottom line, there still is no 1:1 mapping of digital camera sensor pixels to a 4K screen. The screen just does not have enough resolution to map all the pixels used on the sensor to take the image.

So, you really can't see the difference on a 4k screen between a 16mp sensor image and a 24mp sensor image.

Tedolph

I have to say that this while exists in the previously mentioned cameras that it's NOT the industry standard for making 4K cameras, mainly because of the massive 8K pixel number needed for a non-bayered readout. As I said only red and one or two do this.

Otherwise all the most commonly used video, stills, Cinema cameras use 8.3/8.8mp readout for UHD/4K video. From the very first 1DC, GH4, 1DXII, 5DIV, A7sII, A7rII/III, A9, A99, XC10, XC15, panasonics, Alexa's, Reds (except for the very latest 8K s35 and 8K VV versions), C300II, C500, C200, C700, FS5, FS7/II, F5/F55, (these are 50$+ Cinema cameras that only have 8.8mp sensors thus it's pretty obvious the makers mostly see a bigger advantange in bigger pixels with 1:1 readout than oversampling smaller yet more pixels. Yet.

I was just refferring to the point that no cameras are doing full readout which is wrong. (the 3:2 and 4:3 sensors won't record 4:3/3:2 video obviously - but some do for anamorphic more like the GH4 and GH5 and Alexas and reds and some have native 16:9 8K sensors for 4K like Reds, they're all there, exist and are working in the fields. just pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement for those who don't know.

I wholeheartedly agree the differnence can't be seen between 16mp and 24mp images on a small consumer HD displays or even normal printers. 16mp is huge.

I don't understand why people are having such a difficult problem understanding the basics. The way the camera manufacturers define pixels is completely different than how monitor manufacturers define pixels. Camera manufacturers define pixels which are really subpixels. Monitor manufacturers define pixels as a red, green, blue triad. Using the monitor manufacturer's definition, the camera manufacturers are overstating it by three to four times. The camera manufacturers interpolate. Monitor manufacturers don't.

We understand it. We also understand that Jefftan can't see the difference in a stills shot on a 1080p monitor (or a 4k monitor for that matter) between a 16 mp camera and a 24 mp camera even though he thinks he can.

That is the point.

Tedolph

@Michael1000 -- "potentially". All of this is just masturbatory pixel peeping. That's not what real photography is about.

That's why I waiting for 12Mp A7sIII.

"16MP should not exist in 2017
ridiculous"

That's total BS. I, frankly, do not need more than 16mp. 16mp is plenty for most people. To put things into perspective for you, Joe McNally shot the first all-digital story for National Geographic Magazine on a 5.3mp Nikon D1X which was good enough for five double trucks (aka, a pair of facing pages) and a four-page gatefold in the magazine. He also printed up gallery prints that went on exhibit. Read about it in this article:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_pageff3f.html?cid=7-6450-6561

I'm not saying we should all go back to shooting 5mp DSLRs. What I'm pointing out is that today's 16mp sensors offer a huge amount of resolution, certainly good enough for very high quality gallery prints. People have just become spoiled whiners who think that they need more than they really need with megapixels. Even with cropping, I find 16mp to be plenty. I used to shoot weddings at 10mp!

@T3 - "I, frankly, do not need more than 16mp. 16mp is plenty for most people."

That may be true for some, but not for others. But what you and almost every other m43 supporter does need is a large enough customer base to keep the system fresh and its suppliers financially healthy. And that's not happening any more. What is happening is m43 has started declining back into the direction of niche status, and an expensive one at that.

Many of those who WANT more than 16MP (whether they need it or not) have simply moved on to those suppliers who will provide it to them. And with better DR and lower noise thrown in as a bonus.

It may sound cool to tell people not to let the door hit them on their ass on their way out, but after a while, the room gets kind of empty and there are few left to enjoy the joke anymore. That's when they begin to realise, maybe the joke is on them.

D4S laughs

> What is happening is m43 has started declining back into the direction of niche status, and an expensive one at that.

What's wrong with that? Besides there's plenty of cheap m43 bodies.

How much you need for 6"x4" print? 1500x1000px!!!

It's not that 16MP is not enough. It's just that 16MP m43 sensor is very old and seriously lack behind in all other fields.

@red I - Cheap 16MP bodies few want because they already have something similar or something better.

There is nothing wrong with a sustainable niche, it's just the unsustainable ones that leave people holding a lot of expensive gear that suddenly loses it's resale value.

And the danger is it becomes self fulfilling. Olympus Imaging's financial projections show growth from 0.2% margin to 4% margin by 2021, but based on much lower sales.

This is being done by fewer but more expensive (and higher margin) products.

The EM1 mk 2 is for sure a great camera, but the price made a lot of people take a sharp intake of breath. Along with the new large expensive Pro lenses, this new direction is now clear.

The entry level EM10 mk3 on the other hand was already a big dissapointment to many.

It seems Olympus already knows that many of those entry level customers have been let go. It's just some of those customers who haven't figured it out yet.

@T3
I suppose that B & H will stop selling Nikon DF after reading your 'excellent' response?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1013090-REG/nikon_1525_df_dslr_camera_black.html

And you had 10 MPx not so long back...how could you shot pictures !? that's ridiculous ! Wait for 100 MPx, cooming soon.

As a MFT user sadly I have to agree with you to some extent. Not so much as far as the IQ is concerned or indeed the functionality of the cameras but their costs. Olympus especially,certainly in the UK, charge far too much for their E-M1 mk II,£1850 compared to Fuji X-T2 £1500. They are pricing themselves out of the market. Fuji in particular are now producing excellent cameras/lenses with larger sensors at more competitive prices,and they are not much larger.

Id rather have 10-12MP m43 sensor. 16MP is too cramp for the sensor size. M43 photos have a sterile look to it

Then I am automatically far better photographer than you as I deliver with "just 16Mpix" results up to 100x75cm without difference to 42Mpix (A7r2) and even high ISO.

Silly me with my 12mp A7s

"there is no place for a 2017 camera to be 16 MP"

Wow, you sound like a dictatorial nazi, lol. The reality is that there is a massive segment of the market that will never need anything more than 16mp. And it's ignorant to believe that more megapixels is always better. It's not. It's like increasing the top speed of automobiles. Most people will never drive their car at top speed. At a certain point you say, "this top speed is definitely more then adequate to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of drivers." Likewise, the same can be said of megapixels. People who think that more megapixels are always going to be better, or even needed, are just misinformed.

It adds nothing useful to bring specialists tools like the A7S into the mix. What that camera does with colour in very low light is truly remarkable.

But even a casual glance at the galleries and challenges here and on gallery sites will show that photography in good light is an order of magnitude more popular than specialised low light needs.

For general photography, the move from 12MP 4/3 sensors to 16MP brought only improvements, and from 16 to 20MP only more improvements.

People just like to defend the brands they like.

You have half the crowd defending the lack of movement as being unimportant as there is hardly any difference anyway, and then you have the other half saying it's only right Olysonic reserve their best sensor for the expensive models, lol.

Then YI comes along and exposes the BS by putting the better sensor in a $300 body, double lol.

@Najinsky - "People just like to defend the brands they like."

Right, because YI has such a huge fan base! Hahaha.

People really do have to look at their relationship with megapixels. It's not all about having megapixels, people. At least not anymore. It would be a different story if we were still using 6mp cameras. There is definitely a sweet spot for a practical level of megapixels that actually has a real impact on how people use their photos. I think that sweet spot is 12-16mp. Anything more is mainly wasted on the overwhelming majority of users. And by the way, people who are still into anal-retentive pixel peeping really ought to get a life. It's really taken over photography, and it's not for the better. But sadly, that's how people like to measure themselves these days...vicariously though how many megapixels their camera has. It's like megapixel snobbishness and elitism. Then you ask them how big they print, and they say, "I don't." LOL.

@T3.

I think you need to refine your definition of 'overwhelming majority of users'. The overwhelming majority of those have left the room because smartphones pass your good enough criteria.

Those who remain are almost by definition a larger percentage of those who are looking for something more.

If you think printing is the only objective measure, perhaps it explains the disconnect between you and those you are failing to convert into doing things your way.

@Najinsky - The overwhelming majority of people buying cameras really don't need more than 16mp. Let me ask you: how big do you print? I've printed excellent 20x24" prints from a 10mp camera with no problem. There are a lot of people here who seek out more megapixels and obsess over teeny tiny differences in IQ because they are trying to fill up their egos or own feelings of inadequacy that they then project onto equipment. If you can't get a high quality, highly detailed image from a 12-16 mp sensor, then the issue is probably with you. The unhappiness probably lies within yourself. But no one likes to think that there's anything wrong with themselves. And I think there's even a bigger self-esteem issue with someone who says that "16MP should not exist in 2017" and that "there is no place for a 2017 camera to be 16MP". This person is projecting his own insecurities onto everyone else. That's like saying the only cars that should exist are big SUVs with lots of horsepower. Insecurity.

@T3, honestly, I don't have the motivation to respond to that diatribe.

Just enjoy yourself with your 16MP and make peace with the fact you are not going to convince the world to do likewise.

I do ultra wide angle landscape picture

in a 15mm equivalent picture, there is so many things and detail in the picture
that even my 24MP can't full resolve to my satisfaction
and than people told me 16MP is enough

I would prefer APS-C to move to 36MP (and it would eventually)
Maybe it depend on what kind of picture one is taking
for example taking the picture of a person face than maybe 16MP is enough

The YI M1 records in Adobe DNG RAW format. ACR in Lightroom, Photoshop, and Elements plays well with the RAW files. Program such as ACDSee and DxO do not play well with the files.

On the Linux side of things, Darktable and RawTherapee work well. nUFRaw and UFRaw will process them too.

I've gotten the best results with either ACR (on Windows) or Darktable (Linux).

why don't u use with MF lens"

Samyang 12mm F2
Laowa 7.5mm F2

I returned it. I had the latest firmware update available installed. It's just not a very good camera even for $300. It couldn't achieve accurate focus in daylight conditions with its own kit lens or any other m4/3 lens I owned. The YI kit lens focused just fine on my Panasonic GM1.

Even if you're okay with all your photos being out of focus, the UI is terrible. A slick touch screen interface could make up for the lack of dedicated buttons but the YI touch screen interface is anything but slick. The UI is poorly design and the touch screen is very laggy.

You didn't return it before trying the latest update. It may be a lot better now.

It would be a lot more if they did what Lan suggests - There are a lot of people who will take a chance on an "iffy" item if they have control. Very often they might not use it for "typical" uses, but by virtue of being open source, it may be the only thing that can be adapted to suit their needs.

Look at how popular the Chinese TS100 soldering iron has become - originally it was a piece of junk, but they open-sourced the firmware and thanks to rewritten third-party firmware invites, the unit has become amazing.

This is a good idea. The fact that a camera had open source might pull some software guys into it even if they weren't avid photographers. It's quite amazing what has been done on open source projects. I have no interest in the camera, but if it was an open source I might at least give it some thought.

If they properly open source the firmware/api you'd see a a huge jump of open source developers jump in. Make it Linux compatible and you'd have a huge niche market which would over shadow normal customers, mind you then it wouldn't be niche lol.

You can just sell the hardware and the rest of the community does the dev work for free.

I have zero interest in this camera - but if it had open source firmware I'd buy it immediately.

Well - I'd buy it after seeing confirmation that at least one person successfully built firmware for it.

Unfortunately licensing restrictions with some component they used probably prevent that at this point - heck, the NDAs required for the MFT mount might even prevent it.

@Hellraiser - That is partly because there are no embedded ARM GPUs that are open source friendly. Qualcomm keeps a large part of their radio stack proprietary too - and if you want LTE you didn't have a choice of anyone else for quite a few years.

One manufacturer (Fairphone I think) royally screwed up in their research - when designing their supposedly open-source phone, they chose a manufacturer for their CPU chipset (Mediatek) that was WIDELY known to be one of the worst GPL violators in the industry.

Yeah, the Air is a great example of how NOT to do it. I saw no evidence of it actually being an open system in any way, other than "yeah we gave you mechanical dimensions so you can mount things to it". Basically as "open" as Sony's "free basic E-mount specifications for companies" seems to be. "basic" appears to mean "mechanical only, no electronic protocol documentation" based on the state of the third-party electronic adapters/lenses industry more than six years after Sony's "big" announcement that people still cite when claiming E-mount is "open".