Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3

All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 All DSLRs excluding Canon and Nikon mounts ie Sigma, Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Leica R Back DSLRs and 4/3 System

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 12th, 2009, 09:18 PM
Jeff Donovan Jeff Donovan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Watertown, MA
Posts: 137
Default Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough

Finally, someone came out and did it

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13951_1-10189546-63.html
__________________
_________________
Nikon D80 with 18-55mm lens
Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ-30
Minolta Hi-Matic 9 35mm rangefinder (fixed lens, 45mm f/1.7)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old March 12th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Daniel Buck Daniel Buck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 374
Default

I would agree. When most folks ask me about megapixels, I usually tell them 8mp is plenty for most things.
__________________
Daniel Buck - Photographer and 3d artist
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
3d work: DanielBuck.net
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old March 13th, 2009, 01:33 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,940
Default

Sorry folks but besides the fact that this particular news has been discussed to death in various fora, I fully disagree. Yes, the 8MP may be enough for many purposes but the stance taken by Olympus here has nothing to do with philosophical thinking but entirely driven by their inability to produce a better functioning higher resolution sensor for their 4/3 format. So they use the marketingspeak to pretend that they care about such philosophical things. I have used digital cameras between 1-12.8 MP and recently I have the new 5D MkII with the 21MP. I really see a world of difference by having the "usable" extra MPs available, even when I am going to print small. I wouldn't go back to 12 MP willingly now.
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old March 13th, 2009, 05:27 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cem_Usakligil View Post
Sorry folks but besides the fact that this particular news has been discussed to death in various fora, I fully disagree. Yes, the 8MP may be enough for many purposes but the stance taken by Olympus here has nothing to do with philosophical thinking but entirely driven by their inability to produce a better functioning higher resolution sensor for their 4/3 format. So they use the marketingspeak to pretend that they care about such philosophical things.
I agree with Cem. Unless Olympus starts showing things like true 14 or 16-bit dynamic range, this remains marketing speak to mask the limitations of a small sensor array. It reminds me of the Nikon claim that they would never require a full (24x36mm) frame sensor array (actual reason: because they couldn't make one for a reasonable price/performance ratio).

I'm not saying that for many people 8 MP isn't good enough, but let's not fall for marketing speak either.

It reminds me also of the everlasting debate about 300/360 versus 600/720 PPI, but that's something for another thread. Let it suffice to say that the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

This shouldn't detract from the fact that Olypmpus can produce some outstanding glass, which also helps in getting technically good images.

Bart

Last edited by Bart_van_der_Wolf; March 13th, 2009 at 07:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old March 13th, 2009, 05:47 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,536
Default

I think what is very telling is Watanabe's statement, "Customers who want more than 20 megapixels should look to full-frame cameras".

In other words, 12 Mpx is enough unless you need 25 Mpx.

So his point is really that, assuming you want to use a Four-Thirds system camera, then 12 Mpx is all you should want.

A more candid statement might be that, based on today's technology, for cameras with a Four-Thirds system size sensor, many people will find the optimal balance between performance properties, for a range of photographic tasks, with a pixel count of about 12 Mpx.

But maybe that's what he said!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old March 13th, 2009, 08:57 AM
Daniel Buck Daniel Buck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 374
Default

I don't think there is really any doubt of the *reason* they have declared 12mp to be enough, no company would really do anything like that for a philosophical/ethical reason, no doubt the reason is just because they don't want to (or can't) make larger chips more inexpensively. So they make it sound like there is no *reason* to. Maybe I'm jaded by advertisements and company policies, but that's the first thing that pops into my mind.

However, I still do think that 8mp is plenty for *most* people, not everyone. Alot of people I know who have DSLR cameras never print anything, and never do anything with the pictures accept send out email-sized images to friends/family, and post photos online of their car/cat/kid/project/ebayitem or whatever. 8mp for those purposes is way over kill, and for alot of people, that's all they use it for. Most people who ask me about getting a DSLR, fall into that catagory, most of which assuming that more megapixels means better quality, at any size. Nothing wrong with using photos like that, but you could very easilly use an older/cheaper camera for those purposes, why spend money on a new camera that is way overkill? :-)
__________________
Daniel Buck - Photographer and 3d artist
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
3d work: DanielBuck.net
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old March 13th, 2009, 02:49 PM
Martin Kuivenhoven Martin Kuivenhoven is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Posts: 117
Default

Think two stories are getting mixed up .. one is the technical limit of the four-third sensor size and the other one is the remark that 12mp is enough for most users.

Regarding the technical limit of the four thirds sensor it was considered that the earlier 7.5 mpx sensor would be a technical limit and Olympus would be left behind. In the meantime Oly & Panasonic have released a 12mpx sensors with significant better performance on all fronts. It is not unlikely that Oly will, now at 12 mpx, need to diversify between either more mpx or remain at 12 but develop IQ, dynamic range and ISO performance.

(the figure of 12mpx is of course a choice as Canon seems to be able to cram 15mpx an a way smaller Powershot G10 sensor and remain quite good IQ according to Reichmann and other capable users ..)


I think a lot of Olympus users will be quite happy with 12 mpx and improved IQ. Better out of camera JPG's further improved WB etc has been reasons why people (and also some who earn their living) have chosen Olympus. These guy's will be looking at Olympus to increase dynamic range, improve IQ at high ISO's and to keep developing great lenses (the real reason to chose the FT-system, either Oly or Panasonic/leica).

I can imagine that Mr. Watanabe is testing the waters with this remark.

I agree that more users will be better served with increased sensor performance versus more pixels (ideally both, of course). Some not, and there are other offers in the market that will serve them well.

And last, there is the lust factor. Or the emotional side of buying gear. And I am certainly not referring to Cem or anyone here. However Footbalstar David Beckhem owning a Leica M8 could maybe serve as nice example ..

So will it be a smart marketing choice to stick to 12 mpx ? Oly has proven in the past to follow it's own path and sometimes taking a different approach. Sometimes successful. Sometimes not. Wonder how this will develop.

Regards, Martin
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old March 13th, 2009, 04:15 PM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

On 4/3 12Mp probably is enough. Diffraction is going to start being a major issue at fairly low apertures I would imagine - after all it's equivalent to just under 48Mp on 36 by 24 (with deference to Doug) - quite apart from noise. If you've worked with a 12Mp 5D and a 1Ds3 or 5D2 like Cem then the additional resolution is very welcome, and whose to say that 48Mp wouldn't be even better:)

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old March 13th, 2009, 06:38 PM
John Sheehy John Sheehy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Shimwell View Post
On 4/3 12Mp probably is enough. Diffraction is going to start being a major issue at fairly low apertures I would imagine
That's pretty much what you would have to do. :)

Increasing pixel density does not cause a camera to run into diffraction problems, unless you believe that higher-MP cameras are meant to be used for larger prints, or 100% zooms on the monitor. Increasing the density only increases resolution, from an infinitesimal amount (such as when the lens is by far the limiting factor, like a wide-open $200 28-105mm at 28mm), to much more (like going from low-res with a strong AA filter to higher res with a weaker AA filter, both with a very sharp lens).

While it is important to look at things like Bart's animation, showing at which f-stops diffraction starts to become significant, this should never be misconstrued to suggest that you'd be better off with a lower pixel density to avoid the point of diminishing returns; that is a logical fallacy that is easy to fall into.

Ideally, we'd be capturing images at pixel densities where, without an anti-alias filter, it took a few pixels to transition from white to black. That would allow sharp lines at all angles to look the same, no demosaicing artifacts of any type, easy identification of optically impossible pixel values for noise reduction, no losses from rotation or perspective correction, or CA adjustment, etc. It is hard to do, though, since the files would be tremendous, they would be slow to edit, etc. Images with low resolution and high neighboring-pixel contrast are efficient-but-inferior substitutes for ideal imaging; not the ideal of imaging.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old March 13th, 2009, 08:44 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,536
Default

Hi, John,

All well said.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old October 13th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Benjamin Vallejera Benjamin Vallejera is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12
Default

hi, first time to participate in this forum...

how can they create better low-light enhancement in a 4/3 system?
I'm an olympus user and IMHO, 4/3 system is a boundary that limits olympus to go full blast with Mega pixels. (unless some einstein would bend laws of physics.)

but i do like my camera. i don't shoot for billboards and large format so small sensor doesn't hurt me much.

but they do adhere to their philosophy. they've been creating compact cameras since the OM days. (and even the pen series).
__________________
http://rovic11.multiply.com
-=Newbie from Manila=-
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 14th, 2009, 12:09 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Vallejera View Post
hi, first time to participate in this forum...
Welcome Benjamin!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Vallejera View Post
How can they create better low-light enhancement in a 4/3 system?
I'm an olympus user and IMHO, 4/3 system is a boundary that limits olympus to go full blast with Mega pixels. (unless some einstein would bend laws of physics.)
No need to bend the laws of physics. There are other sensors being built. The sensels will be the tiniest ever do not collect charge! They are either charged or not. Designs that are either on or off. With layers of silicon filters, each addressing a further step in DR, massive dynamic range can be built and the noise will be very low. In the meanwhile, things will get gradually better. For a start, if Fuji would license their novel silicon technology that gives 14 stops of Dynamic Range, Olympus would have a sensor to gloat about!

There's still a long way to go in improving sensors without requiring Einstein to have a headache!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 19th, 2013, 06:18 AM
Dawid Loubser Dawid Loubser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 592
Default

Just a very belated addition to this thread. The Four Thirds system has taught me the virtue of better lenses over more megapixels. Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't like a 20MP, low-noise sensor from the next professional camera from olympus - becuase I have demonstrated in the past that even at f/2.0 at any focal length, the Olympus Super High Grade lenses completely outclass the sensor over the entire frame.

However, I'd take a perfectly sharp 12MP over a fuzzy 36MP any day.
I just received a 1.1m-wide (A0) print I had made of this image today:


The Claw by dawid.loubser, on Flickr

Though only 12MP, the evenly-rendered fine detail right into the corners is something to behold - I am absolutely thrilled with the quality of the output, and believe it's of the highest standard that any critical viewer looking at the framed image could reasonably expect. Nobody will be able to tell it apart from a full-frame print (unless that full-frame was a Canon, because they don't have a 14mm lens that performs nearly at this level :-)

It's also interesting to compare to my darkroom prints from 4x5in film. Surprisingly, it's not easy to make large prints that properly reflect the (usually superior) detail captured on the piece of film, though I've never tried a 1m optical print :-) Certainly, the microcontrast of the digital image is much better, but the film images have a smoothness and "solidity" sbout them that is different.

I would love if Olympus kept the replacement of the E-5 at 12MP, or even 16MP, with a sensor with fabulous dynamic range and low noise. That's all that us die-hard users of the system ask for :-)

My lenses balance terribly on the tiny OM-D E-M5 camera, and the autofocusing with the four thirds lenses is poor - so I'll skip that one methinks. Most of the small (but beautiful) matched micro four thirds lenses do not perform anywhere near the level required to make huge prints like these, whereas the SHG four thirds lenses let you suck every last pixel of detail out of the raw files, with no corrections necessary that smear it (such as correcting distortion). Until I get a darkroom again, I am such a happy camper with my 12MP :-)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 19th, 2013, 12:38 PM
Michael Nagel Michael Nagel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 2,275
Default

Well, the replacement could be the sensor used in the E-M5 or the next generation of sensors.
Currently there is no WA-lens on µFT that compares to the FT 7-14 from Olympus.
There is hope - better lenses become available - the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 60mm f/2.8 ED Macro is amazing and the 75/1.8 seems to be at least equal or even better.

Let's see what will become available in the future...

Best regards,
Michael
__________________
I do not call myself an artist, I just try to capture what I see.
If you need many words to describe what your picture means, it doesn't speak enough for itself.
my photos on flickr - here is the portion posted in OPF.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 04:29 AM
Dawid Loubser Dawid Loubser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Nagel View Post
Currently there is no WA-lens on µFT that compares to the FT 7-14 from Olympus.
I agree with you, and to the point of relaxing the system consraint... There is almost no equivalent to this lens on any system whatsoever. The closest match is the Nikkor 14-24, but it's much larger, and has more substantial barrel distortion than the (more rectilinear) 7-14. Nikon's other ultrawide zoom (the 16-35mm f/4.0) was clearly designed by a summer intern by comparison - a very weak attempt.

I certainly think the Micro Four Thirds lenses are "good enough" for great images, but it will probably never see native lenses with imaging abilities like the four thirds SHG lenses, simply because of the size constraints / trend to digitally correct distortion etc.

The exception will be short telephoto or macro fixed-focal-length lenses, which are the least-challenging lenses to design well and make very compact, if history is anything to go by.

Thanks for the link(s) to the work with the 60/2.8 Macro... Very nice.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 12:33 PM
Michael Nagel Michael Nagel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 2,275
Default

Dawid,

this is the reason why I still stick with my DA 12-24/4. It is not as wide as the Olympus but delivers a pretty good image quality. I started with this lens on a 6MP camera and now I am at 16MP and the lens did not disappoint me. The distortion is not that bad on the wide end, almost inexistant on the long end, only the lateral CAs when wide open bother me sometimes. The µFT 7-14 is no match in resolution and sharpness.

If I need WA, I will still have the other camera, but using two bodies is good anyway when you want to be fast...

Still - the E-M5 can deliver excellent results. The best (from my point of view) µFT lenses I have seen and tested myself so far are the Lumix (Summilux) 25/1.4, the Olympus 45/1.8 and the Olympus Macro 60/2.8 (thanks for the nice words).
Even inexpensive zoom lenses like the Olympus 40-150/4-5.6 can deliver astonishing results when used in their sweet spot.

Best regards,
Michael
__________________
I do not call myself an artist, I just try to capture what I see.
If you need many words to describe what your picture means, it doesn't speak enough for itself.
my photos on flickr - here is the portion posted in OPF.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Olympus Zuiko ED 14-35mm f2.0 (autofocus problem) Karsten Schneeberger All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 11 April 13th, 2009 09:03 AM
Impressive Olympus 12-60mm close focus Robert Watcher All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 6 March 2nd, 2008 07:03 PM
FS Olympus E20n and accessories Denis de Gannes Buy and Sell Photo Equipment: Excess gear by participating members. Pictures please! 0 March 9th, 2007 07:16 AM
Where art thou Olympus? Ben Rubinstein All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 7 March 6th, 2007 01:53 PM
Desire to write a new, free raw converter Daniel_Hyams Image Processing and Workflow 13 August 1st, 2006 01:43 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!