Sony's Oly investment

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Alan Browne, Sep 28, 2012.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Sep 28, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The cooperation has already been going on for some time. The sensor of
    the OM-D is from Sony.

    Olympus has always been struggling to get decent sensors for their
    cameras and now they seem to have solved the problem.
    Alfred Molon, Sep 28, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    That's just component supply. Sony manufacture all sorts of chips that
    you will find in a wide array of products.

    The investment at hand is in the medical imaging side with the companies
    also considering in digital cameras (see what you snipped from the prior
    Alan Browne, Sep 28, 2012
  4. Alan Browne

    RichA Guest

    So will the endoscopes end up with hot pixels too? :)
    RichA, Sep 28, 2012
  5. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    In the context of the investment at hand it is completely irrelevant.
    It's just the existing supply of components.

    The sentence you snipped (regarding cameras): "The two companies will
    also consider cooperating in digital cameras, they said."

    ... likely means higher integration. Perhaps EVF's, optics, firmware,
    software, etc. Perhaps Sony will source lenses to Oly and/or v.v. But
    that's not part of the investment at hand either so far.
    Alan Browne, Sep 29, 2012
  6. Alan Browne

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But it is highly relevant for photographers. This is not a forum for
    Possibly Sony and Oly will share more components, but again this is not
    a problem. Both companies have strengths in specific areas.
    Alfred Molon, Sep 29, 2012
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    The original posting was to clear up the fact that the Sony investment
    in Oly would have no effect on photographers in the near term. Or even
    Alan Browne, Sep 29, 2012
  8. Alan Browne

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The availability of a good image sensor has a very big effect for
    photographers. Olympus has always been struggling here.
    Alfred Molon, Sep 29, 2012
  9. Alan Browne

    Me Guest

    There was probably no real reason why they couldn't have used Sony
    sensors earlier (than the OMD E5), presumably Olympus was using Sony
    sensor for P&S cameras, so they would have already had a relationship.
    With larger format (4/3 - 35mm) it seems that Sony have worked their way
    into a very strong position.
    CMOSIS (supplying the new Leica M) seem to use similar technology to
    Sony Exmor (on-chip 14 bit column AD conversion). It will be
    interesting to see how it performs against the (same pixel pitch) Nikon
    D600 sensor. I don't think it will win - it will be a generation
    behind, perhaps similar to the D3x.
    Claimed 76dB linear dynamic range is less (about 12.6 vs 13.4 stops),
    FWC is also just over 1/2 that of the D600.
    Me, Oct 1, 2012
  10. The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
    quality). It collects and focusses the light, hopefully avoiding
    too many lens imperfections (especially the ones you can't fix
    in post). The sensor only records, and even mobile phone camera
    sensors do good enough with good light.

    Now, if you meant "camera body", you might have a point.
    But again, depending on your type of shooting, you might need
    fast, reliable, predictive AF more than the best sensor. Or you
    might need good automatics for the JPEG engine more --- imagine
    you shoot for newspaper or the web and need the photo really
    quick (say sports), so no time for raw converting and WB fixing.
    Or you need to hold your camera for long time spans, then it must
    be comfortable to hold. No good sensor will help you if your
    hand is too tired to properly hold the camera. How about long
    battery life? Or tilt&swivel LCD, for those types of shooting
    where even an angle finder won't do?

    "XXX is the most important component in a camera" assumes far
    too much about the circumstances of the shooting to be true.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 5, 2012
  11. Alan Browne

    RichA Guest

    Remember the Star Trek episode where the lunatic and the hippies
    landed on planet Eden and all the fruit was poisoned?
    RichA, Oct 6, 2012
  12. Alan Browne

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Oct 6, 2012
  13. Alan Browne

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    The "weakest link" is always going to be the "most important"
    component, in the sense that improvments to the limiting component
    are going to have to most greatest effect on the image quality.
    A lot of cameras do not have optics good enough to exploit a higher
    pixel count, to pick one classic example. For such cameras,
    improving the optics is the only way to improve the image. I
    once owned a compact camera that, in closeup mode, could resolve
    details down to one pixel. It could actually have benefited from
    more pixels.
    Paul Ciszek, Oct 7, 2012
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 10, 2012
  15. Alan Browne

    jdanield Guest

    Le 10/10/2012 11:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg a écrit :
    the result will ba at best what deserve tha worst element

    jdanield, Oct 10, 2012
  16. Alan Browne

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
    you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.
    Alfred Molon, Oct 10, 2012
  17. Alan Browne

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Text messaging on a mobile 'phone again?
    Eric Stevens, Oct 10, 2012
  18. Alan Browne

    Trevor Guest

    As always, the "weakest link in the chain" rule applies. Why on earth use
    crap lenses with good bodies/sensors, or vice versa?

    Actually with many good lenses costing as much as good bodies, there's often
    not much difference in replacing either.

    Trevor, Oct 11, 2012
  19. It's as easy to replace the sensor as to replace the lens.
    Buy a new body. They're becoming cheaper every hour. Look at
    the prices of bodies first made 5 years ago if you don't belive me.

    Now, good lenses keep their value for a long time, if you don't
    damage them. And often are many times the price of a small
    up-to-date body with a good sensor.

    You seem to advocate the strategy of using low quality lenses on
    high-end bodies and replace the lenses after some years (when
    the body's worth little). That's rubbish. If you want to go
    cheap to test the waters, buy a used, older body and kit lenses
    (say 18-55 + 55-200). See what you like. See what you miss.
    Then make an informed decision which lenses to buy (if any)
    and of what quality and speed they are needed to be. If your
    body works for you, no need to upgrade it.

    Anyway, as I see it, the last few years have brought body
    improvements in
    - adding 20+ MPix sensors, for which you really want high
    quality glasses, and which most people simply don't need,
    - adding higher usable ISO ratings (Sports, available
    darkness shooting, ...) for which you want fast (wide
    aperture) lenses anyway
    - movie mode, the usefulnes of which is limited to
    a) professional movie makers with focus pullers & co
    b) specialized needs
    c) "for fun" projects with little budget and no problems when
    restricted to one focal length and focussing distance
    because otherwise a consumer camcorder is much better.
    And for proper using the movie mode you really want non-focus
    breathing, parfocal lenses, which cost an arm and a leg, an
    external monitor, proper mikes and co and so on.
    - peripheral systems like AF, which you may need to be top notch
    (then you need an expensive top of the line body) or which work
    OK for you anyway.

    You'll note that about everything that directly impacts the image
    wants a good or excellent (and expensive) lens to be worth the
    body, but you'll still make almost the same quality (a few less
    MPix and not at ISO 6.400) with lesser bodies. Which was my point.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 19, 2012
  20. Agree.

    Would you buy this one second hand from Felix?

    looks like a rather nice 200mm f2.8 although the article says it is a zoom.
    Anyway my current problem is that I have quite a lot of rather nice glass,
    but a FF digital body is ££££, as opposed to £££ for an APS size one. If I
    had wanted APS, I would have bought the Minolta Vectis SLR!
    R. Mark Clayton, Oct 19, 2012
    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.