Olympus and others. Greater mega pixel capacity expected soon? Skinnyon E-3

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by ., Apr 12, 2008.

  1. Dear Fullstop,
    If you don't do low light photography of any kind (birding
    being a not-so-obvious example) nor do (quite) shallow DOF
    photography (some types of portraits, for example), you'll not
    see much differences, since it'll still be you behind the camera.
    Otherwise, you will see differences as you reach the limits of
    your technology:


    You can crop a bit less --- or have a bit less resolution on
    large posters. Quite irrelevant in most cases.

    Your lenses need to be 10% better in absolute spatial resolution
    (due to the smaller pixels) for a same pixel-by-pixel resolution,
    or a bit more than 30% more resolution for full-picture size.
    That means against a high-end lens on the D300 you need to pit
    an even higher quality lens.
    According to photozone.de, most lenses reach the sensor resolution
    only in the center and only a stop or maybe 2 around f/5.6 (for
    APS, that'd be f/8 for full frame), so your best resolution
    against comparable equipment will probably suffer somewhat.
    This will only be a problem where you have the resolution to see
    the difference (i.e. 100% crops or larger posters seen close up).

    If you keep your ISO setting below 400 or (maybe) 800, you'll
    probably not see much of a difference --- but the D300 can
    utilize higher ISO settings with the same or less noise. This
    will affect every situation where light is in short enough
    supply, be it 1/800s to freeze a bird lifting off in the shadow
    or an evening in the pub (or even normal indoor photography)
    without flash, especially if your objects move ... I happen to
    run into such situations regularly, others do not.

    The D300 has about a stop shallower DOF. That means:
    - full frame camera: f/2.0
    - D300 and other 1.5/1.6x: f/1.4
    - 4/3rds: f/1.0

    Now, there are 85mm f/1.2 and f/1.8 for Canon, 50mm (80mmKB) f/1.4
    (and f/1.2 and even the old f/1.0), also for Canon, but what
    is in the ~40mm(80mmKB) class for Olympus? 14-35mm f/2.0 and
    35-100mm f/2.0 are the fastest lenses I could find on
    Olympus' website for any focal length! So:

    FF ~ APS ~ 4/3rds
    85mm f/1.8 ~ 50mm f/1.2 ~ 40mm f/0.9
    85mm f/4 ~ 50mm f/2.8 ~ 40mm f/2

    As you can see, playing with shallow DOF is, at least in the
    'portrait' length of ~80mm, doable with APS, but the small
    sensor and the dearth of really fast lenses cost you lots of
    shallow DOF potential. That is, of course, irrelevant, if
    you plan on only shooting at f/8, oops, f/4.

    You'll also find that the amount and breath of lenses offered
    is quite low: there are very few fixed focal length lenses,
    especially there seem to be no ultra-fast lenses (faster than f/2).
    How that hurts or influences you only you can know.
    (Note that I would worry if these f/x-5.6 lenses are already
    beyond the best f-stop for resolution wide open (and may or may not
    need stopping down) --- just as I would worry about an f/11-f/16
    (cheapo-)tele for full frame.)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 16, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Most certainly not.

    Just today I have seen an image (printed!), that was fine in
    the sunny parts but very disturbingly and visibly noisy in the
    shadows --- even though it wasn't a large poster or something
    like that. If you averaged that to the whole image, you't have an
    acceptable noise level --- which would be similar to describing
    a car behaviour 'satisfactory' that runs well above 5 MPH, but
    bucked and screeched and randomly jumped about between 1-4 MPH!

    Or describing nitroglycerine as "mostly" unexplosive (it is not
    explosive, unless you disturb it badly enough --- when it becomes
    extremely explosive).
    They can only win by either offering similar noise (and thus
    reducing resolution), being way ahead technologically (unless Canon
    and Nikon and Co. catch up, and you can bet your life on that
    they will!) or being so much better in another quality (size,
    price, weight, ...) that the lower image quality or resolution
    is not as important[1].

    At the moment I don't see how 4/3rds will find a large niche
    between the convenience point&shoot and the DSLR rig.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] Compare 35mm still cameras to medium and large format,
    even back in the film days, where the same sensor could be
    used by all: 35mm "won" because of the size and mobility,
    not because of image quality!

    Comare also your point&shoot or mobile phone "camera" you
    always carry with you versus the vastly more capable DSLR rig.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 16, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. .

    frederick Guest

    Lol - that wasn't what I meant - and I suspect that you probably knew that.
    Small film camera are "hobbled" by having the same resolution across
    formats.
     
    frederick, Apr 16, 2008
    #23
  4. .

    frederick Guest

    Sorry - perhaps that deserved more explanation.
    Downsample a 10mp image to 6mp, and if the s/n ratio "comparing pixels"
    is no worse than a "native" 6mp image, then there's arguably nothing
    "lost" by having the extra pixels, but something is potentially gained
    through having the extra pixels.
    For Olympus sensors, they underperform - ie if there was a canon sensor
    with similar pixel density - it would probably perform much better.
    I guess that could be seen comparing the new 450d vs a 10mp Olympus 4/3
    camera. At the pixel level, I'll bet that the canon sensor outperforms
    the Olympus sensor by a considerable margin. If true, then 4/3
    performance could be improved.
     
    frederick, Apr 16, 2008
    #24
  5. I am curious. What *did* you mean but not write?
    ^^
    If. If my bank account had a couple of additional zeroes,
    I'd be rich, too.
    If you can argue that the additional time and space needed to
    transfer and store that blown-up image ...
    So why not go for 200MPix? After all, we can interpolate
    many of those, and bambozzle the customers into thinking they
    might gain something, potentionally ...
    I understand that 4/3rds does not use backlit sensors yet, so,
    yes, it can be improved. (Don't ask how much backlit sensors cost:
    if you need to ask, you certainly don't have the money!)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 17, 2008
    #25
  6. .

    frederick Guest

    What are you waffling on about?
    Is there something that you don't understand? It's quite basic.
    4/3 could be better if Olympus used more efficient sensors.
    If pixel size mattered, then what's the "best" pixel size? A 1 pixel
    sensor has no shot noise - is that the best?
     
    frederick, Apr 17, 2008
    #26
  7. [Lots of stuff "frederick" declined to answer, so he could
    waffle better]
    You know perfectly well why *you* declined to answer any
    questions.
    I don't understand your reasoning processes.
    So you say.
    I'd find less kind words for it.
    APS sensor size cameras could be better with more efficient
    sensors, as well.

    Full frame cameras could be better with more efficient
    sensors, as well.

    Even 10"x10" backends, if they exist, could be better with
    more efficient sensors.


    It seems *you* don't understand that any more efficient sensor
    Olympus can come up with, surely Canon, Kodak, Nikon, Sony,
    et. al. can come up with as well.


    Did you stop beating your wife?
    Or is she forcing you to ask these inane, stupid, misguided,
    brainless questions?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 19, 2008
    #27
  8. That must be why you never, ever, choose an ISO setting
    above the lowest one.
    And also why tools never have any limitations.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 19, 2008
    #28
  9. .

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    |> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    |
    |
    | It seems *you* don't understand that any more efficient sensor
    | Olympus can come up with, surely Canon, Kodak, Nikon, Sony,
    | et. al. can come up with as well.
    |
    |
    |
    | -Wolfgang

    It appears you don't have much of a clue either Wolfgang. Olympus use
    Panasonic Sensors. Before that they used Kodak sensors. So without any
    sensor development or production facilities... Tell us how Olympus can
    come up with *ANY* sort of sensor, much less and efficient one.

    Why is it you have to engage in personal insults in every post you make?
    Have you no social skills?
    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFIClPOhuxzk5D6V14RAlY9AKCSL+kSxW141Er+J+93ZUHh30ykbwCdFM5V
    N4jPM/CCFXh9Xk7gAzNWlsY=
    =yhiU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 19, 2008
    #29
  10. .

    . Guest

    While struggling to understand all that you say, since I have neither
    the education or lengthy experience in digital photography, I'm
    wondering if you have web sites that have studies with comparison
    photos that show high noise and low noise with various systems.
    Especially helpful would be comparison between Olympus and Nikon since
    that is what has been discussed here.

    Charlie
     
    ., Apr 19, 2008
    #30
  11. .

    JG Guest

    Yes I do. Stop talking shit.
    The only limitation I am seeing is your IQ, which does not match even
    the lowest ISO setting.

    Email replies remove REMOVE
    Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
    http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
     
    JG, Apr 20, 2008
    #31
  12. And *I* though "it is the glass that matters really" ...
    Really!
    The Nikons start at ISO 200, IIRC. I doubt my IQ matches 200.

    BTW: Your irony meter is broken, or you are one of the people
    who think irony is the same as silvery or coppery. Get that
    fixed.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 22, 2008
    #32
  13. .

    ____ Guest

    Careful! The D200 ISO starts at 100. That's forty points lower than I
    want my IQ to be.
     
    ____, Apr 22, 2008
    #33
  14. .

    Guest Guest

    some nikon cameras start at iso 50...
     
    Guest, Apr 22, 2008
    #34
  15. .

    JG Guest

    Poor old Wolfie....he could not have known that.....

    Email replies remove REMOVE
    Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
    http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
     
    JG, Apr 22, 2008
    #35
  16. Yes, it's dumbed down, obviously!

    Well, what you want your IQ to be and what it is might just
    diverge a little bit.
    They don't belong to rec.photo.digital.SLR-SYSTEMS, do they?
    Now, someone who mixes up their newsgroups is well equipped
    to rate IQs, right?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 22, 2008
    #36
  17. .

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Nah - for once D-Mac is right. Olympus are behind the game,
    and have locked themselves into a system that can never be
    competitive against Canon & Nikon. Yes they make a good
    camera, yes they make some fantastic lenses, yes some of
    their gear is good enough for use by professionals, yes some
    professionals do use their gear, but unless they do
    something sensational they will never be a serious
    professional contender, or for that matter a serious
    contender for the advanced enthusiast dollar.

    They are up against it for a few reasons:
    1 - No matter how sensors improve, Olympus will always be 1
    step behind APS and 2 steps behind 24x36. If noise levels
    are to be equal, Olympus will always be 1/2 resolution of
    APS and 1/4 resolution of 24x36. Alternatively if resolution
    stays the same, Olympus' noise levels will be 1 stop behind
    APS and 2 stops behind 24x36. Or some combination of the 2.

    2 - reduced ability to control DOF. 4/3 requires 1 more stop
    of Aperture compared to APS and 2 more stops compared to
    24x36 of aperture to deliver the same level of selective blur.

    3 - Because 4/3 is always behind the larger formats for
    resolution and/or noise, there is always speculation about
    it's longevity. Professionals don't want to buy into a
    dead-end system.

    4 - Most professionals are already committed to either Canon
    or Nikon, and purchase additional lenses/bodies to suit
    their existing gear. Very few already have Olympus, so very
    few will be prepared to purchase a complete new system.
     
    Doug Jewell, Apr 23, 2008
    #37
  18. .

    JG Guest

    Who cares?
    Bit plenty more do because it is not dead end, and because it serves
    their needs.
    Yep that is true, and Oly know it, but there is still enough interest
    in the cameras because the target audience is different.

    Horses for courses.

    Email replies remove REMOVE
    Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
    http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
     
    JG, Apr 23, 2008
    #38
  19. .

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Not quite - the Oly P&S are mostly made by Sanyo, and other
    assorted Chinese no-brand manufacturers. As are most Nikon,
    Pentax & Kodak (& probably more - I suspect Sony are also in
    this category).
    Panasonic are one of the few who do manufacturer their own
    P&S cameras (along with Canon, Fujifilm, Samsung and
    possibly Sony). Panasonic have a co-branding relationship
    with Leica.
    Panasonic were one of the companies who committed to 4/3,
    and as part of that commitment, they produce 4/3 sensors
    which are used by Olympus. Panasonic build their DSLRs on an
    Olympus chassis, although not much else of the camera is
    Olympus. The camera is then rebadged as a Leica.
    For them to really succeed they need to ditch 4/3 and move
    into a larger format sensor. Olympus's fate as a serious
    DSLR maker was sealed when they ditched their film SLRs. If
    they built their DSLRs with OM compatibility they _may_ have
    stood a chance.
    I think you mean E300 not D300. The E300's were cleared to
    shift them because Olympus loaded stores up with stock on
    promises that never materialised, and then promptly
    discontinued them and announced new models. If you think you
    lost out on a few cameras that lost their value, spare a
    thought for the poor retailers! I don't think there'd be a
    single retailer that stocked them that didn't lose at least
    several thousand dollars on them. I know of one major Aussie
    camera retailer that tore up more than $100,000 in just one
    of their stores. What amazed me even more is that Olympus
    didn't burn their bridges with the E300 fiasco - I'm
    surprised that any stores continue to stock Olympus after that.
    but it is true - in Australia anyway.
     
    Doug Jewell, Apr 23, 2008
    #39
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.