Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough
rpd
In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
for covering most applications most customers need. We have
no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
This is fantastic news. It has been the unofficial line at
camera manufacturers for a while now, but Watanabe is the
first to say it out loud, and to actually base future tech
policy on it. So what will Olympus be doing instead? Higher
dynamic range, better color and higher ISOs for better low-
light performance.
Watanabe also thinks that SLR focusing is set to change.
Instead of having a separate focus module as is done today,
he predicts that soon systems using the image sensor will
take over. Right now, this method is used by compact
cameras and SLRs in live view mode. As you may have
noticed, it's slow. Watanabe thinks that it will soon be a
lot faster.
We can only say "well done" to Olympus. The company has a
history of innovation. Perhaps now the megapixel race is
finally over, we'll get some fun new toys to play with.
ZDNet - "Olympus has declared an end to the megapixel war":
http://is.gd/mauP
John McWilliams
> Wired http://is.gd/mWiI/12MPenough
>
> In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
> show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
> confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
> pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
> Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
> for covering most applications most customers need. We have
> no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
Who's this "we" that has known an universal truth for so long??
While there's a point to what he says, he does hedge with "most apps
most custs.", an intelligent approach.
--
john mcwilliams
Charles
still on for those fat cats who can afford ridiculous vehicles.
I'd gladly stick a knife into the Megapixel beast but think that it will
live on after death like the vampire that it is.
Bob
rema...@reece.net.au says...
-:Wired http://is.gd/mWiI/12MPenough
why would anyone repost this from a remailer account?
pr flack?
Bruce
>Wired http://is.gd/mWiI/12MPenough
>
>In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
>show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
>confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
>pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
>Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
>for covering most applications most customers need. We have
>no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
>
>This is fantastic news.
No, it isn't. It is merely a statement that the supplier of sensors to
Four Thirds has realised the impracticability of manufacturing
reasonably low noise sensors in that format with more than 12 MP.
If 12 MP is the practical limit in Four Thirds, it would suggest that
something over 40 MP would be practical in 24x36mm format (FX or
"full frame").
David J. Littleboy
"rpd" <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
> Wired http://is.gd/mWiI/12MPenough
>
> In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
> show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
> confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
> pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
> Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
> for covering most applications most customers need. We have
> no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
Right. At 12MP in the 4/3 system, the pixels are about the same size as they
would be in a 48MP FF camera. I.e. about one stop less sensitive/noisier
than the 20+MP cameras. And a lot closer together, requiring much better
lenses.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
SMS
> Wired http://is.gd/mWiI/12MPenough
>
> In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
> show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
> confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
> pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
> Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
> for covering most applications most customers need. We have
> no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
LOL, of course he'd say that. What he didn't do is qualify his statement
by explaining why going beyond 12 megapixels is not going to happen on a
4:3 sensor.
At least he set the benchmark. 12 megapixels for 4:3 means that full
frame would top out at around 46 megapixels for the same pixel density,
and APS-C will top out at around 18-20 megapixels for the same pixel
density. Sounds about right.
I'm amazed that the manufacturers that are down in the lower single
digits in market share are able to carry on at all. I suppose that the
explosion in digital SLR sales means that even someone with 5% market
share like Olympus can sell enough to make a go of it. That they could
even get 5% with the 4:3 system is amazing.
Keith Nuttle
that the cpu manufactures hit a couple of years ago?
rjn
> >This is fantastic news.
> No, it isn't. It is merely a statement that the supplier of sensors to
> Four Thirds has realised the impracticability of manufacturing
> reasonably low noise sensors in that format with more than 12 MP.
But if Black Silicon works out, watch for some back-peddling
on this "sound barrier that cannot be broken" claim from Oly.
> If 12 MP is the practical limit in Four Thirds, it would suggest that
> something over 40 MP would be practical in 24x36mm format (FX or
> "full frame").
And if B.S. isn't B.S., does the "35mm" sensor format run
out of lens res before getting to 40 Mp?
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:na...@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
David J. Littleboy
> >This is fantastic news.
> No, it isn't. It is merely a statement that the supplier of sensors to
> Four Thirds has realised the impracticability of manufacturing
> reasonably low noise sensors in that format with more than 12 MP.
But if Black Silicon works out, watch for some back-peddling
on this "sound barrier that cannot be broken" claim from Oly.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Or if back-illuminated sensors become practical. My understanding, though,
is that current sensors have about a 30% QE, and while that leaves some room
for improvement, it's not two stops, and without cryogenic cooling, 50% is
probably the best we'll see. Not even a whole stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>
> If 12 MP is the practical limit in Four Thirds, it would suggest that
> something over 40 MP would be practical in 24x36mm format (FX or
> "full frame").
And if B.S. isn't B.S., does the "35mm" sensor format run
out of lens res before getting to 40 Mp?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
As John S. keeps pointing out, lens res doesn't "run out": more sensor res
always provides some (albeit marginal, really small) amount of increased
resolution no matter how bad the lens. It's just that if you want the same
pixel level IQ, things get more difficult. But even then, lenses like the
70-200/4.0IS and 50/1.4 at f/8, will, I'd guess, provide pixel sharp images
on a 48 MP sensor.
semoi
higher resolutions that no one cares about and will be viewed through a
medium, print or online, where all those megapixels are utterly irrelevant
and largely discarded.
Progress.
SMS
> And if B.S. isn't B.S., does the "35mm" sensor format run
> out of lens res before getting to 40 Mp?
No. The better resolution lenses will cost more though, just like some
of the Olympus 4:3 lenses are ridiculously expensive.
To get true wide angle on a 4:3 camera requires a Olympus 7-14 f4 Zuiko
lens at about $1700, versus about $650 for a Canon or $850 for a Nikon
wide angle zoom.
T.Adler
The fact that Olympus wasn't even known in photography circles until they
introduced the OM1 and rocked the SLR world on their ear with size and
noise minimization. Then again with the OM2 when they were the very first
to introduce OTF exposure metering systems (which is now standard metering
methods in most all cameras today in one form or another) ... means that
"market shares" don't mean crap if someone comes up with a much better
mouse-trap.
I know plenty of pro photographers that will jump ship in a heartbeat if
some unknown company with even zero market-shares comes up with some better
innovations instead of the tired and old mechanically noisy slow-sync crap
designs from last century.
But then you'd know this if you were anything but a web-experience-only
pretend-photographer.
You're an idiot.
SMS
> I know plenty of pro photographers that will jump ship in a heartbeat if...
Right, I'm sure you do.
Market share means having the revenue to develop those new designs and
to amortize all your marketing and sales expenses over a much larger
number of sales. In short, market share means a lot. Which is why
Konica-Minolta bowed out of the digital camera business, and why Pentax
is trying to survive by co-developing with Samsung.
Mark Thomas
(the usual Keoeeit abuse)
Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
aware of his background.
"T.Adler" is the anti-dslr- and chdk-troll, aka Keoeeit, Vern, X-Man,
Baumbadier, Casiobear, etc, ad infinitum.
He's well known for the 'attitude', and that's being kind. He can be
found on many forums, is frequently banned (eg Steve's Forums,
photography-on-the.net) and he's usually quite easy to spot, by his
withdrawn posts and images. He doesn't like leaving a trail, but is too
incompetent to not be recognised wherever he goes..
(and still always posts from cpinternet..)
Stands out like the proverbial puppy nuts.. (O:
For further details, google "keoeeit minnesota". You'll see his posts
are often lamenting about how he lives alone...
Umm, any questions?
SMS
> T.Adler wrote:
> (the usual Keoeeit abuse)
>
>
> Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
> aware of his background.
Thanks, after I responded I realized that our friend has returned. One
more for the kill-file.
Alfred Molon
> To get true wide angle on a 4:3 camera requires a Olympus 7-14 f4 Zuiko
> lens at about $1700, versus about $650 for a Canon or $850 for a Nikon
> wide angle zoom.
But the 7-14 is of extremely high quality, much better than comparable
Canon or Nikon lenses. Also the telecentric design delivers better
results.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Bruce
>Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> >This is fantastic news.
>
>> No, it isn't. It is merely a statement that the supplier of sensors to
>> Four Thirds has realised the impracticability of manufacturing
>> reasonably low noise sensors in that format with more than 12 MP.
>
>But if Black Silicon works out, watch for some back-peddling
>on this "sound barrier that cannot be broken" claim from Oly.
>
>> If 12 MP is the practical limit in Four Thirds, it would suggest that
>> something over 40 MP would be practical in 24x36mm format (FX or
>> "full frame").
>
>And if B.S. isn't B.S., does the "35mm" sensor format run
>out of lens res before getting to 40 Mp?
No, there is still some image quality to be had beyond the current
offerings of "only" 24 MP. The problem is, what has to be sacrificed to
gain those extra pixels? Is there are market for a 40+ MP sensor that
is as crippled as the Panasonic 12 MP sensor for Four Thirds?
Bruce
>In article <K4Ztl.8588$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> To get true wide angle on a 4:3 camera requires a Olympus 7-14 f4 Zuiko
>> lens at about $1700, versus about $650 for a Canon or $850 for a Nikon
>> wide angle zoom.
>
>But the 7-14 is of extremely high quality, much better than comparable
>Canon or Nikon lenses. Also the telecentric design delivers better
>results.
That lens might be superb, but it may never get the chance to deliver
images of more than 12 MP because of the limitations of Four Thirds.
MoParMaN
news:MPG.2422dab8a...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <K4Ztl.8588$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> To get true wide angle on a 4:3 camera requires a Olympus 7-14 f4 Zuiko
>> lens at about $1700, versus about $650 for a Canon or $850 for a Nikon
>> wide angle zoom.
>
> But the 7-14 is of extremely high quality, much better than comparable
> Canon or Nikon lenses. Also the telecentric design delivers better
> results.
> --
Quality at about half the price of the 7-14.
--
--MoParMaN--
---Scud Coordinates 32.61204 North 96.92989 West---
---Remove "Clothes" to Reply---
Keith Nuttle
camera for micro photograph in the 50's.
My old Miranda still works perfectly bought it in the late 60's.
Interestingly I had to get it cleaned about a year ago. No one would
touch it because of its age, until I found a guy working in an antique
shop with antique cameras, who did a great job.
Michael Benveniste
> But even then, lenses like the 70-200/4.0IS and 50/1.4 at
> f/8, will, I'd guess, provide pixel sharp images on a 48
> MP sensor.
A 48MP 24x36mm sensor works out to about 120 lp/mm. The Rayleigh
diffraction limit for 50% MTF at f/8 is about 86 lp/mm for 550nm
light. For red light at 120 lp/mm, you need to open up to f/4.5
or so.
That doesn't take into account any AA filter.
In practice, people like Erwin Puts found that even 100 lp/mm was very
difficult to achieve even under laboratory conditions. Eventually,
focus accuracy and vibration become the gating factors rather than the
sensor or lens.
That isn't to say that a 48MP sensor would be worthless -- it could
provide more data for sharpening algorithms and for color accuracy.
Personally, I agree with Mr. Watanabe -- assuming that people are
viewing the resulting print as a whole. But that assumption fails for
group portraits and panoramas, which are often printed larger so that
viewers can examine regions of the shot more closely.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.
David J. Littleboy
"Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> But even then, lenses like the 70-200/4.0IS and 50/1.4 at f/8, will, I'd
>> guess, provide pixel sharp images on a 48 MP sensor.
>
> A 48MP 24x36mm sensor works out to about 120 lp/mm. The Rayleigh
> diffraction limit for 50% MTF at f/8 is about 86 lp/mm for 550nm light.
> For red light at 120 lp/mm, you need to open up to f/4.5 or so.
Is you math's wrong somewhere? The standard approximation for MTF50 is
800/(f number), which gives 100 lp/mm for f/8. Hmm. Same ballpark, I guess.
In real life, f/16 produces lovely sharp images on the 5D, so f/8 should
produce similar lovely sharp images on a 4 times as dense sensor, i.e. 48MP.
(Actually, f/16 is fine on the 5DII as well, so I'm being quite conservative
here. It's only at f/32 on the 5D and f/22 on the 5DII that one actually
notices diffraction softening.)
If your theory doesn't match real life, it's time for a new theory.
FWIW, my theory is that with a Bayer sensor, you are quite happy with the
images if you have a lens MTF of 50% at 70% of the Nyquist frequency.
(Although that "70%" ranges from 60% to 80% depending on what point I'm
arguing<g>.)
> In practice, people like Erwin Puts found that even 100 lp/mm was very
> difficult to achieve even under laboratory conditions. Eventually, focus
> accuracy and vibration become the gating factors rather than the
> sensor or lens.
On the other hand, Zeiss claims to have achieved over 200 lp/mm on film with
a production lens and a real (not test chart) subject. (Although on a
discontinued film.)
If you think of things in terms of total image resolution, the large format
folks regularly produce a lot more than 48MP, so I think Erwin Puts is
getting it quite wrong (his difficulties are probably due to the low MTF of
his sensor (film) at 100 lp/mm).
I'm finding that I'm getting sharp images handheld on the 5DII with the
70-200/4.0 IS at insanely long shutter speeds, so I doubt that getting sharp
images with a 1.4 times as dense sensor will be all that difficult.
> Personally, I agree with Mr. Watanabe -- assuming that people are viewing
> the resulting print as a whole. But that assumption fails for
> group portraits and panoramas, which are often printed larger so that
> viewers can examine regions of the shot more closely.
That assumption also fails for some fine art photography, especially
landscapes.
Decide how big you want to print and what resolution you need to retain the
impression of detail at your customers' closest viewing distance, and
that'll give you your required MP count. Can your customers tell the
difference between 240 ppi and 300 ppi at 10"? If so, you need a 5DII class,
not 12MP class, camera to make 13x19" prints.
rjn
> That isn't to say that a 48MP sensor would be worthless -- it could
> provide more data for sharpening algorithms and for color accuracy.
At some MP, you no longer need an AA filter at the
Bayer sensor, because the lens is the AA filter.
> Personally, I agree with Mr. Watanabe -- assuming that people are
> viewing the resulting print as a whole. But that assumption fails for
> group portraits and panoramas, which are often printed larger so that
> viewers can examine regions of the shot more closely.
More MP, assuming they resolve something, is also useful
when extracting regions of larger images. I'm often going
back to old product images to extract details I didn't know at
the time were going to be needed later.
But only the whole, the chief beneficiaries of the MP Wars
are the makers of flash RAM. Were it not for photo MP, a
couple of them might be shut down already.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
I tried getting 200 lp/mm on film, using my Minolta SRT201 and
the kit 55 mm [sic ... the extra 5 mm makes a difference in
ease of design for the Minolta flange] f/1.8 lens. This was on
Tech Pan, ordinary developer (not compensating ... contrast
is sky high.)
It was not easy until I started using a sturdy tripod and flash.
Then all one needed was to get the focus right. An orange filter
helped a lot, since Tech Pan has extended red sensitivity. One needed
to use a microscope and examine the negatives. I'm not sure I ever
actually "saw" 200 lp ... that's "line pairs" per mm. But I did
see image detail in the 2 to 3 micron area, with lots and lots
of nice structure at 5 microns. The sweet spot for that lens is
f/3.5 to f/4, which is just what is needed.
Doug McDonald
Get lost
will be at least 18. Olympus will be further back. Which is a shame,
since their lenses are most able to handle more pixels, especially at
the edge because of their high correction and proper design.
Michael Benveniste
>> A 48MP 24x36mm sensor works out to about 120 lp/mm. The Rayleigh
>> diffraction limit for 50% MTF at f/8 is about 86 lp/mm for 550nm light.
>> For red light at 120 lp/mm, you need to open up to f/4.5 or so.
>
> Is you math's wrong somewhere? The standard approximation for MTF50 is
> 800/(f number), which gives 100 lp/mm for f/8. Hmm. Same ballpark, I
> guess.
I think my math is OK, but my source is debatable. I've been using
a constant of 0.38 as described here:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
Puts gives 94 lp/mm for f/8 and 555nm, so the "same ballpark" may cover
it.
> In real life, f/16 produces lovely sharp images on the 5D, so f/8 should
> produce similar lovely sharp images on a 4 times as dense sensor, i.e.
> 48MP.
The majority of subjects do not require pixel-level sharpness. I
think that's Mr. Watanabe's point.
>> In practice, people like Erwin Puts found that even 100 lp/mm was very
>> difficult to achieve even under laboratory conditions. Eventually, focus
>> accuracy and vibration become the gating factors rather than the
>> sensor or lens.
>
> On the other hand, Zeiss claims to have achieved over 200 lp/mm on film
> with a production lens and a real (not test chart) subject. (Although on a
> discontinued film.)
The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
but not really for "most applications most customers need."
> If you think of things in terms of total image resolution, the large
> format folks regularly produce a lot more than 48MP, so I think Erwin Puts
> is getting it quite wrong (his difficulties are probably due to the low
> MTF of his sensor (film) at 100 lp/mm).
Mr. Puts was using slow black and white film in 35mm format, which
should have been able to easily reach that 100 lp/mm mark.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/Film/page35.html
Paraphrasing a bit, there's no substitute for square millimeters. :-).
48MP on 4x5" film works out to about 31 lp/mm, which is a lot easier
to achieve. One is typically not worried about handheld induced
camera shake nor mirror slap with a large format camera either.
> Decide how big you want to print and what resolution you need to retain
> the impression of detail at your customers' closest viewing distance, and
> that'll give you your required MP count. Can your customers tell the
> difference between 240 ppi and 300 ppi at 10"?
Virtually all of photography, including depth of field calculations,
are based on the acuity and field of vision of the Mark I eyeball.
But you're actually asking a two-part question.
1. Can the customers can detect the difference?
2. Whether they can detect it or not, are they
willing to pay more for the higher resolution?
I call this second issue the "Monster Cable" question. But thinking
about 4/3rds again, it may be that Mr. Watanabe isn't all that
concerned about the pro market.
SMS
It's a good lens because to deliver similar results with the smaller
sensor it has to be. That's one advantage of a larger sensor.
SMS
> My old Miranda still works perfectly bought it in the late 60's.
> Interestingly I had to get it cleaned about a year ago. No one would
> touch it because of its age, until I found a guy working in an antique
> shop with antique cameras, who did a great job.
I still use my Olympus XA!
It's just too bad that Olympus didn't leverage their existing SLR base
and continue with the same mount, rather than coming out with 4:3.
If you look at 4:3 as a competitor, size-wise, to ZLRs, rather than a
competitor, quality-wise, to digital SLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or
Sony, there is definitely a value proposition for 4:3. You can get the
tremendous advantages of an SLR over a P&S at about the same size as a
ZLR, you just can't get the quality of an APS-C or full frame D-SLR.
Bruce
>Mark Thomas <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> T.Adler wrote:
>> (the usual Keoeeit abuse)
>>
>> Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
>> aware of his background.
>
>Nevertheless what he said about the impact of the OM1 is correct. Whilst
>Olympus were not unknown in photography circles, this was their first
>venture into SLRs and their compact SLR system took the world by storm and
>ended up being copied by every other SLR manufacturer.
Far too much hype there. Olympus made two SLRs before the OM Series.
There was the Pen F/FT series of 35mm half frame SLRs, whose lenses had
already earned Olympus quite a reputation by the time the OM-1 appeared.
Then there was the Olympus FTL, a 35mm full frame SLR with the M42 screw
mount.
But yes, the small OM-1 SLR was indeed something new. It was originally
called the M-1 and the system of cameras, lenses and accessories was
known as the M System. Not surprisingly, Leica were not happy about
this and threatened legal action.
So, after some cameras and lenses had already been sold with the M-1 and
M System designations, Olympus changed the name of the system to OM, and
the camera became the OM-1. The few remaining M-1 cameras and M lenses
are collector's items.
There is no doubt that the OM-1 inspired small SLRs from other
manufacturers - the Pentax ME and MX, and the Nikon FE and FM. But
Olympus never managed to challenge Nikon for the professional market.
Yes, a few pros used the Olympus outfits that had been given to them
free of charge, but very few actually bought them with their own money.
The OM System was more popular with enthusiastic amateurs.
Here in the UK, the iconic fashion photographer David Bailey was
employed by Olympus UK to advertise the OM System. But he never used
the OM System for his own work. He used, and still uses Hasselblad gear.
Alfred Molon
> If you look at 4:3 as a competitor, size-wise, to ZLRs, rather than a
> competitor, quality-wise, to digital SLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or
> Sony, there is definitely a value proposition for 4:3. You can get the
> tremendous advantages of an SLR over a P&S at about the same size as a
> ZLR, you just can't get the quality of an APS-C or full frame D-SLR.
There is not much size difference between a 4/3 sensor and an APS-C
sensor.
David J. Littleboy
"Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> In real life, f/16 produces lovely sharp images on the 5D, so f/8 should
>> produce similar lovely sharp images on a 4 times as dense sensor, i.e.
>> 48MP.
You've changed the subject below, so I'll reiterate it here. The experience
here is that moving from 12 to 21MP, I'm not having significant difficulties
getting sharp images. I wasn't expecting IS (on the 70-200/4.0 IS) to work,
but it coughs up lovely sharp images. The 17-40/4.0 used to be OK at f/16 on
the 5D, but is mush on the 5DII, but with work, I'm getting sharp images
with the 12-24.
So I expect that the 12-24 won't fly on a 48MP camera, but that the new 17
and 24TSEs, the 50/1.4 (stopped down), and the 70-200/4.0 IS will. Maybe
I'll need to use more of a tripod more of the time. But 5D to 5DII was a
1.3x increase in resolution, and 21 to 48MP will be a 1.5 or 1.6x increase
in resolution.
It's a bit of an irritation to replace the old TSE with the new, but if the
CA is held down and its sharper and contrastier and covers a wider shift
range
> The majority of subjects do not require pixel-level sharpness. I
> think that's Mr. Watanabe's point.
Hmm. I can't think of any that don't<g>. It's not the subject that requires
or doesn't require resolution, it's the application.
His point is that most people don't make 13x19 and
larger prints, and that in fact, most consumers don't even make 5x7 prints.
So even 12MP doesn't really make any sense.
>> On the other hand, Zeiss claims to have achieved over 200 lp/mm on film
>> with a production lens and a real (not test chart) subject. (Although on
>> a discontinued film.)
>
> The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
> MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
> but not really for "most applications most customers need."
The image in question was of a clock tower, and they argued that it was nice
to resolve the numbers on the clock. That's pictorial photography...
>> If you think of things in terms of total image resolution, the large
>> format folks regularly produce a lot more than 48MP, so I think Erwin
>> Puts is getting it quite wrong (his difficulties are probably due to the
>> low MTF of his sensor (film) at 100 lp/mm).
>
> Mr. Puts was using slow black and white film in 35mm format, which
> should have been able to easily reach that 100 lp/mm mark.
> http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/Film/page35.html
A lot of that is straw man arguing there.
But I'm surprised he had so much trouble. TMX100 claims to be well over 50%
MTF at 100 lp/mm. Shoot at f/8 (MTF50 at 100 lp/mm), and he should have been
home free to at least 15% contrast on the film, at least in the center.
> Paraphrasing a bit, there's no substitute for square millimeters. :-).
> 48MP on 4x5" film works out to about 31 lp/mm, which is a lot easier
> to achieve.
Especially since
48MP would be 5656 x 8484 pixels, or 118 lp/mm. But you really only work at
70% of that theoretical resolution with a Bayer sensor, so that's 83 lp/mm.
> One is typically not worried about handheld induced
> camera shake nor mirror slap with a large format camera either.
Hmm. I wasn't "worried about" camera shake or mirror slap in the last
hundred or so photos I took: they were all taken on a tripod with the
mirror locked up.
>> Decide how big you want to print and what resolution you need to retain
>> the impression of detail at your customers' closest viewing distance, and
>> that'll give you your required MP count. Can your customers tell the
>> difference between 240 ppi and 300 ppi at 10"?
>
> Virtually all of photography, including depth of field calculations,
> are based on the acuity and field of vision of the Mark I eyeball.
> But you're actually asking a two-part question.
>
> 1. Can the customers can detect the difference?
> 2. Whether they can detect it or not, are they
> willing to pay more for the higher resolution?
>
> I call this second issue the "Monster Cable" question.
I actually use Monster Cables (actually some other brand of outrageously
expensive gold plated hardware cables). Not because they sound better, but
because cheaper cables are so shoddily made that they fail during
performance.
> But thinking
> about 4/3rds again, it may be that Mr. Watanabe isn't all that
> concerned about the pro market.
Exactly. Interestingly, I have acquaintances in the SF area who do fine art
work with the G1. But these are old 35mm blokes who don't mind a bit of grit
in their images.
Alan Browne
> Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
> for covering most applications most customers need. We have
> no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
>
> This is fantastic news. It has been the unofficial line at
> camera manufacturers for a while now,
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Cynthia-20090210-0191FS.jpg
says you and Watanabe are full of crap.
I would agree that for people who have been toting SLR's with ordinary
lenses and getting ordinary prints of 12x10 inches at most - yes, 12
Mpix is more than sufficient. If that is a definition of "most people"
then Olympus' "most people" is a more ... common pool of people than
Canon, Nikon and Sony's "most people".
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
SMS
> In article <BAbul.26015$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> If you look at 4:3 as a competitor, size-wise, to ZLRs, rather than a
>> competitor, quality-wise, to digital SLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or
>> Sony, there is definitely a value proposition for 4:3. You can get the
>> tremendous advantages of an SLR over a P&S at about the same size as a
>> ZLR, you just can't get the quality of an APS-C or full frame D-SLR.
>
> There is not much size difference between a 4/3 sensor and an APS-C
> sensor.
The Nikon APS-C sensor is 64% larger than the 4:3 sensor. The Canon
APS-C sensor is 46% larger than the 4:3 sensor.
I guess if you're comparing this to a full frame sensor that's 384%
larger than 4:3 then you could claim "not much difference" but in
reality the 46% and 64% is still significant.
Michael Benveniste
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>So I expect that the 12-24 won't fly on a 48MP camera, but that the new 17
>and 24TSEs, the 50/1.4 (stopped down), and the 70-200/4.0 IS will.
Fly? Quite possibly, but physical limits will prevent you from
achieving the resolutions you claimed.
>> The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
>> MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
>> but not really for "most applications most customers need."
>
>The image in question was of a clock tower, and they argued that it was nice
>to resolve the numbers on the clock. That's pictorial photography...
As you say. Without see the picture nor any reference to it, it's
impossible for me to disagree. But with a 24MP dSLR, Zeiss's own
engineers were only to achieve a 10% MTF at 100 lp/mm, much less
200 lp/mm. See: http://snipurl.com/8xdr7 [zeiss.com] (PDF).
>A lot of that is straw man arguing there.
As opposed to your own undocumented claims?
>But I'm surprised he had so much trouble. TMX100 claims to be well over 50%
>MTF at 100 lp/mm. Shoot at f/8 (MTF50 at 100 lp/mm), and he should have been
>home free to at least 15% contrast on the film, at least in the center.
You shouldn't be. The f/8 diffraction limit for a 30% MTF is about
155 lp/mm. By the Higgens formula, to achieve 100 lp/mm at 15% you'd
need a film with a MTF 50 of about 130 lp/mm. Kodak only claims 125
lp/mm for TMax 100. So under perfect conditions and with perfect
processing, it's barely possible.
Alfred Molon
> The Nikon APS-C sensor is 64% larger than the 4:3 sensor. The Canon
> APS-C sensor is 46% larger than the 4:3 sensor.
But it's not two, four or ten times larger - just a bit larger.
Markus Fuenfrocken
> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Cynthia-20090210-0191FS.jpg
> says you and Watanabe are full of crap.
to 24 MP. Look at the hairs. Mushy details all over.
Wanna see a sharp high MP picture on pixel level?
http://www.eliassegui.com/paloma02.jpg
But nevertheless i´m with you - Olympus is wrong, there is no problem
stuffing 21 MP or more on a FF sensor, but one thing is true: 95% of the
users could easily get by with 12 MP.
Cheers,
Markus
bugbear
> Watanabe also thinks that SLR focusing is set to change.
> Instead of having a separate focus module as is done today,
> he predicts that soon systems using the image sensor will
> take over. Right now, this method is used by compact
> cameras and SLRs in live view mode. As you may have
> noticed, it's slow. Watanabe thinks that it will soon be a
> lot faster.
What is the reason for the slowness?
Video mode shows that the main sensor can be read
at 30 frames per second, so focusing
ought to be possible with roughly
that degree of lag.
I assume that there's something I don't know about
holding it back - anyone have knowledge?
BugBear
Mark Thomas
I understand (but am not totally convinced it is irreconcilable..) it is
simply because with contrast detection, the camera's af doesn't know
which way, or how much it has to re-focus, so it tries one way, dang,
then the other to look for improved contrast. Whereas phase detect
'knows' which way to go and also how far..
It seems to me a little intelligence could be applied to the problem,
and in fact the G1 already seems to get pretty kind comments about its
focus speed. I think this issue is gradually on its way out.
SMS
> In article <bDhul.15595$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> The Nikon APS-C sensor is 64% larger than the 4:3 sensor. The Canon
>> APS-C sensor is 46% larger than the 4:3 sensor.
>
> But it's not two, four or ten times larger - just a bit larger.
"A bit" would be like the difference between Canon's APS-C sensor and
Nikon's APS-C sensor. The Nikon is a "a bit" larger.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Cynthia-20090210-0191FS.jpg
>> says you and Watanabe are full of crap.
> Woah that looks really bad! I really looks like a good 12 MP image
> upsized to 24 MP. Look at the hairs. Mushy details all over.
> Wanna see a sharp high MP picture on pixel level?
> http://www.eliassegui.com/paloma02.jpg
Puh-leaze. I can't laugh this hard. It hurts.
Look at the pupil of your models eye: soft detail. Look at mine.
Crisp. Blood vessels, etc.
Really. And at all that I underexposed by a stop and corrected in ACR.
David J. Littleboy
"Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>So I expect that the 12-24 won't fly on a 48MP camera, but that the new 17
>>and 24TSEs, the 50/1.4 (stopped down), and the 70-200/4.0 IS will.
>
> Fly? Quite possibly, but physical limits will prevent you from
> achieving the resolutions you claimed.
I think you misunderstand what I would want from a 48MP 24x35mm sensor and
expect I would get.
All I want is similar sharpness at the pixel level to what I've been
seeing up to now. And that means MTF50 at about 70% of Nyquist, which
produces very nice images on every dcam I've owned up to now.
I really don't expect the world to come to a complete end if the sensor
resolution increases by 1.5 times over what I have now. Again, with 21MP,
images are excellent at f/11, almost imperceptibly less so at f/16, and so
there's no reason not to expect f/8 to be similarly excellent at the pixel
level on a 48MP sensor.
>>> The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
>>> MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
>>> but not really for "most applications most customers need."
>>
>>The image in question was of a clock tower, and they argued that it was
>>nice
>>to resolve the numbers on the clock. That's pictorial photography...
>
> As you say. Without see the picture nor any reference to it, it's
> impossible for me to disagree. But with a 24MP dSLR, Zeiss's own
> engineers were only to achieve a 10% MTF at 100 lp/mm, much less
> 200 lp/mm. See: http://snipurl.com/8xdr7 [Zeiss.com] (PDF).
Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
>>But I'm surprised he had so much trouble. TMX100 claims to be well over
>>50%
>>MTF at 100 lp/mm. Shoot at f/8 (MTF50 at 100 lp/mm), and he should have
>>been
>>home free to at least 15% contrast on the film, at least in the center.
>
> You shouldn't be. The f/8 diffraction limit for a 30% MTF is about
> 155 lp/mm. By the Higgens formula, to achieve 100 lp/mm at 15% you'd
> need a film with a MTF 50 of about 130 lp/mm. Kodak only claims 125
> lp/mm for TMax 100. So under perfect conditions and with perfect
> processing, it's barely possible.
So shoot at f/5.6. That may require that one use a better/more expensive
lens, though.
Alfred Molon
> Alan Browne wrote:
> > http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Cynthia-20090210-0191FS.jpg
> > says you and Watanabe are full of crap.
> Woah that looks really bad! I really looks like a good 12 MP image upsized
> to 24 MP. Look at the hairs. Mushy details all over.
> Wanna see a sharp high MP picture on pixel level?
> http://www.eliassegui.com/paloma02.jpg
Huh? Look at the eyes of both girls. There is not much visible
difference in terms of resolution.
Bob Larter
> In article <gpd7vl$aqs$1...@online.de>, Markus Fuenfrocken says...
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Cynthia-20090210-0191FS.jpg
>>> says you and Watanabe are full of crap.
>> Woah that looks really bad! I really looks like a good 12 MP image upsized
>> to 24 MP. Look at the hairs. Mushy details all over.
>> Wanna see a sharp high MP picture on pixel level?
>> http://www.eliassegui.com/paloma02.jpg
>
> Huh? Look at the eyes of both girls. There is not much visible
> difference in terms of resolution.
They look pretty close to me, too. That said, the 'Paloma' shot looks a
little sharper/cleaner around the eyelashes & eyebrows. Still, I'd
consider both shots perfectly acceptable.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Furman
What if you use a bellows to enlarge the projected image? I know that's
kind of cheating but it gets to the heart of what the lens is capable of
resolving. Or a teleconverter to assess resolution at a distance.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
4:3 -> 1.5x -> DX -> 1.5x -> FX
-or close to equal steps like that:
FX -> .64x -> DX -> .66x -> 4:3
phil-new...@ipal.net
| In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
| show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
| confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
| pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
| Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
| for covering most applications most customers need. We have
| no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
Translation: we're not going into the high-end or pro market.
For the rest, I'd agree, 12 MP is enough.
| Watanabe also thinks that SLR focusing is set to change.
| Instead of having a separate focus module as is done today,
| he predicts that soon systems using the image sensor will
| take over. Right now, this method is used by compact
| cameras and SLRs in live view mode. As you may have
| noticed, it's slow. Watanabe thinks that it will soon be a
| lot faster.
This is a sign that camera manufacturers understand the value of a flipping
mirror is much less with electronic sensors. With film, you had to be sure
that the film never got exposed until the shot was taken. That plus through
the lens focusing meant having a focal plane shutter and a flipping mirror.
Since the electronic sensor doesn't have the requirement of avoiding any light
until the picture is taken, the focal plane shutter and mirror is no longer
a requirement. They can be used. But a system with in-the-lens leaf shutter,
with electronic viewfinder, and electronic focus (even if manually operated),
is the future of cameras.
| We can only say "well done" to Olympus. The company has a
| history of innovation. Perhaps now the megapixel race is
| finally over, we'll get some fun new toys to play with.
No. They just aren't going into the high end. The high end market will be
hard competition from Canon, Hassleblad, Leica, Nikon, etc. Why bother in
a losing fight. 12 MP is enough for computer backgrounds and printed photos.
Pros will need more. Hobbyists will want more. There will be more. They
will cost more, too.
We'll have a wide variety of cameras with a wide range of pixels sizes, with
12 MP probably being the base for most consumers.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
Alfred Molon
> Translation: we're not going into the high-end or pro market.
Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
need a camera with a large sensor.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| I know plenty of pro photographers that will jump ship in a heartbeat if
| some unknown company with even zero market-shares comes up with some better
| innovations instead of the tired and old mechanically noisy slow-sync crap
| designs from last century.
You mean the camera architecture designed for the limitations of the old
chemical based photography?
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Question: At 12mp has the camera sensor hit the electron tunneling wall
| that the cpu manufactures hit a couple of years ago?
In terms of efficient photon conversion, not even close. But in terms of
cheap ways to shift out pixels, probably.
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Unlimited megapixels for creating more utterly pointless images at ever
| higher resolutions that no one cares about and will be viewed through a
| medium, print or online, where all those megapixels are utterly irrelevant
| and largely discarded.
So I wonder why it is that people are still stitching together non-wide-angle
photos to make wide and panorama photos at high resolution.
The fact is, most consumers have no need for more for what they do. The pros
and hobbyist do things that can use the extra resolution. They will need the
lenses that can do it, too.
SMS
> In article <gpj8s...@news1.newsguy.com>, says...
>
>> Translation: we're not going into the high-end or pro market.
>
> Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
> need a camera with a large sensor.
Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
need a camera with high resolution and low noise, and reasonably priced
lenses.
Alfred Molon
No, that is your personal opinion.
John McWilliams
> In article <jm7wl.10068$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <gpj8s...@news1.newsguy.com>, says...
>>>
>>>> Translation: we're not going into the high-end or pro market.
>>> Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
>>> need a camera with a large sensor.
>> Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
>> need a camera with high resolution and low noise, and reasonably priced
>> lenses.
>
> No, that is your personal opinion.
Er, well, the succint "no" is your opinion, now, ain't it?
--
john mcwilliams
"Youth is full of sport, age's breath is short; youth is nimble, age is
lame; Youth is hot and bold, age is weak and cold; Youth is wild, and
age is tame."
-- William Shakespeare
SMS
> In article <jm7wl.10068$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <gpj8s...@news1.newsguy.com>, says...
>>>
>>>> Translation: we're not going into the high-end or pro market.
>>> Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
>>> need a camera with a large sensor.
>> Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
>> need a camera with high resolution and low noise, and reasonably priced
>> lenses.
>
> No, that is your personal opinion.
No, that's what Watanabe essentially said. 4:3 lenses are necessarily
more costly to build even at qualities good enough for just 12 MP.
Increase the resolution and you run into multiple problems.
There's nothing wrong with Olympus writing off the high-end market of
professional and amateur photographers and concentrating on the much
higher volume consumer market. They don't have to make up excuses for this.
Alan Browne
> There's nothing wrong with Olympus writing off the high-end market of
> professional and amateur photographers and concentrating on the much
> higher volume consumer market. They don't have to make up excuses for this.
Yep.
Alan Hoyle
I own a 4/3 camera and some of the "Pro" lenses (14-54 f2.8-3.5,
50-200 f2.8-f3.5, and 50mm f2). When I totaled up the cost to switch
to Nikon or Canon, the cost for equivalent quality glass is either
equivalent or higher.
For example:
moderate tele, large aperture macro:
Olympus ZD 50mm f2: $400.
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro: $400
Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor: $700
Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor: $470
normal zoom with larger than basic aperture:
Olympus ZD 14-54mm f2.8-3.5: ~ $450
Olympus ZD 12-60mm f2.8-4.0: ~ $950
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS: $500+
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8: $1000+
Nikon DX 18-105mm f3.5-5.6: $300
Nikon DX 17-55mm f2.8: $1100+
Tele zoom with larger than basic aperture
Olympus ZD 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD: $1100
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS USM: $1100 (f2.8 is more expensive)
Nikon 80-200mm f2.8: $1100
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 IS: $1800+
I would love to switch to Nikon for better sports shooting, but it's
a prohibitively expensive proposition.
-alan
--
Alan Hoyle - al...@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
Kennedy McEwen
<scharf...@geemail.com> writes
>
>There's nothing wrong with Olympus writing off the high-end market of
>professional and amateur photographers and concentrating on the much
>higher volume consumer market.
>They don't have to make up excuses for this.
So why are they? Why don't they just say they are going to focus on the
high volume consumer market instead of dressing it up as a megapixel
war?
The fact is that when Olympus chose to use only the 4/3 format they
locked themselves into a megapixel limit which was lower than other
manufacturers and eventually they would not be able to compete. I
suspect that day has arrived much sooner than Olympus expected, even
though many of us were predicting it as soon as 4/3 launched.
Nikon did the same when they announced that they did not foresee any
requirement for anything larger and APS-C, and full 35mm format was not
in their development plans. That caused enough Nikon users to switch to
Canon FF solutions that a new management team at Nikon recanted and
overturned that policy. Now the Nikon-Canon performance battle has
reached parity, if not turned.
Earlier Olympus management had no qualms whatsoever in announcing that
they were going to focus on the high volume consumer market with cameras
like the mju and OM development slowed, almost to a standstill, soon
after the 1984 introduction of the OM-4. It took almost 20 years for
the OM series to formally cease production, but that was due to owner
demand, corporate policy was announced in 1985.
These days it has become unfashionable to announce bold corporate (or
government) policy without dressing it up in spin to dilute the
reactionary impact.
I, for one, would love to see a new Olympus management team recant the
4/3 dogma in the same way that Nikon were forced to. Olympus have
consistently made far better glass than Canon or Nikon for the 40 years
I have been interested in photography, but its a long time since they
had a body that could fully exploit it. Unfortunately, the recession
will make survival itself the biggest battle Olympus face in the next
few years. That's why I am disappointed to see the way they spun this
announcement: far better to have firmly said they were focussing on the
volume consumer market, thus leaving the door open to re-introduce
performance leadership if that strategy paid off.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
nospam
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Nikon did the same when they announced that they did not foresee any
> requirement for anything larger and APS-C, and full 35mm format was not
> in their development plans. That caused enough Nikon users to switch to
> Canon FF solutions that a new management team at Nikon recanted and
> overturned that policy. Now the Nikon-Canon performance battle has
> reached parity, if not turned.
nikon did *not* announce that they had no plans for full frame. what
they said was that it was not cost effective at the time (and that was
when the only option was an $8000 1ds).
SMS
> Why don't they just say they are going to focus on the
> high volume consumer market instead of dressing it up as a megapixel war?
>
> The fact is that when Olympus chose to use only the 4/3 format they
> locked themselves into a megapixel limit which was lower than other
> manufacturers and eventually they would not be able to compete. I
> suspect that day has arrived much sooner than Olympus expected, even
> though many of us were predicting it as soon as 4/3 launched.
>
> Nikon did the same when they announced that they did not foresee any
> requirement for anything larger and APS-C, and full 35mm format was not
> in their development plans. That caused enough Nikon users to switch to
> Canon FF solutions that a new management team at Nikon recanted and
> overturned that policy. Now the Nikon-Canon performance battle has
> reached parity, if not turned.
The difference was that Nikon was never serious when they said they
would not be going full frame, they were just putting on a brave face
because they had no full frame sensor. As soon as they had a full-frame
sensor they changed their story. I think Olympus is very serious about
sticking with 4:3. They have such a tiny market share that it's too late
for them to try to compete in the amateur or professional market. The
other problem they have is lenses, since Olympus has alway lagged Nikon
and Canon at the high end, even when they were making 35mm cameras.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> The difference was that Nikon was never serious when they said they
> would not be going full frame, they were just putting on a brave face
> because they had no full frame sensor. As soon as they had a full-frame
> sensor they changed their story.
they *never* said they wouldn't be going full frame. what they said
was that it was not cost effective at the time and that would probably
change in the future. and it did.
> I think Olympus is very serious about
> sticking with 4:3. They have such a tiny market share that it's too late
> for them to try to compete in the amateur or professional market. The
> other problem they have is lenses, since Olympus has alway lagged Nikon
> and Canon at the high end, even when they were making 35mm cameras.
actually olympus lenses are very good, as were olympus film slrs.
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> Why don't they just say they are going to focus on the high volume
>>consumer market instead of dressing it up as a megapixel war?
>> The fact is that when Olympus chose to use only the 4/3 format they
>>locked themselves into a megapixel limit which was lower than other
>>manufacturers and eventually they would not be able to compete. I
>>suspect that day has arrived much sooner than Olympus expected, even
>>though many of us were predicting it as soon as 4/3 launched.
>> Nikon did the same when they announced that they did not foresee any
>>requirement for anything larger and APS-C, and full 35mm format was
>>not in their development plans. That caused enough Nikon users to
>>switch to Canon FF solutions that a new management team at Nikon
>>recanted and overturned that policy. Now the Nikon-Canon performance
>>battle has reached parity, if not turned.
>
>The difference was that Nikon was never serious when they said they
>would not be going full frame, they were just putting on a brave face
>because they had no full frame sensor. As soon as they had a full-frame
>sensor they changed their story.
I really don't think they ever considered that they would lose such a
large market share as a result of the APS-C only policy. FF only came
back onto the roadmap once the senior management changed and a decision
was made to restore Nikon to their former position.
> I think Olympus is very serious about sticking with 4:3.
I agree, but it only takes a few execs to fall on their swords for that
commitment to change.
> They have such a tiny market share that it's too late for them to try
>to compete in the amateur or professional market. The other problem
>they have is lenses, since Olympus has alway lagged Nikon and Canon at
>the high end, even when they were making 35mm cameras.
>
Its never too late - apart from personal pride of execs and CEOs. People
said it was too late for another player when the OM series appeared in
1973. Nikon, Canon, Pentax were market leaders at the time and Olympus
dared to challenge their cartel having only a heritage of half frames
(the FTL wasn't an Olympus design) and glass.
Olympus don't have a problem with lenses at all. Many of the OM series
lenses still challenge and, in some cases, exceed the capabilities of
equivalents from Nikon and, especially, Canon. Buy, borrow or steal a
convertor that lets you put Oly glass on a Canon full frame body and you
will regret that Olympus ever bought into the 4:3 format.
Alan Browne
> Wired http://is.gd/mWiI/12MPenough
>
> In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
> show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
> confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
> pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
> Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
> for covering most applications most customers need. We have
> no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
>
Oly locked themselves into the 4/3 sized sensor with its smallish (less
than even APS-C) sensor and cannot hope to achieve much more than about
12 Mpix without noise rising horribly even at moderate ISO. They are
forced to say 12 is enough.
I bet Pentax have a FF sensor within a couple years (bought from Sony,
no doubt).
SMS
> Oly locked themselves into the 4/3 sized sensor with its smallish (less
> than even APS-C) sensor and cannot hope to achieve much more than about
> 12 Mpix without noise rising horribly even at moderate ISO. They are
> forced to say 12 is enough.
Perhaps they can make enough money catering to those that would
otherwise buy P&S or ZLRs and can write off those that want more than
snapshots.
They'll just have to seriously cut prices because why would anyone limit
themselves in terms of upgrades when they don't have to (even though
they'll likely never upgrade to full frame anyway).
4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
Alan Browne
I wouldn't go that far, and the actual 'victory' of 4/3 may turn out to
be micro 4/3. Still, from the start it seemed like too radical a
departure when you consign your lens owners to a new mount. Yeah, they
can use adaptors but that's a bit like kissing your sister. And then
round 2: 4/3 lens owners will be using adaptors to adapt those lenses to
micro 4/3 bodies...
Doug McDonald
>>
>> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
>
APS film was sesigned to answer a clear, specific, question:
"Just how crappy can we make our product, at this instant in time,
and still sell at a profit?"
Remember the itsy bitsy cartridge film that preceeded APS?
Same question. And little square negatives?
Doug McDonald
Alfred Molon
> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a large
sensor and excellent lenses (due to the telecentric design).
Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge and
heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the cube
of the (linear) sensor size.
SMS
> APS film was sesigned to answer a clear, specific, question:
>
> "Just how crappy can we make our product, at this instant in time,
> and still sell at a profit?"
Actually APS wasn't bad in terms of quality of the photographs it
produced. There were advantages to the APS system. First, it allowed
non-mechanically inclined individuals to load cameras without screwing
up. Second, it allowed physically smaller cameras like the original
Canon Elph. Third it was supposed to help automate processing. Fourth,
there was supposed to be an advantage in storing negatives inside the
cartridge.
If APS hadn't coincided with the explosion of digital photography then
it might have had more success. One thing that helped kill APS was the
producers demanding big premiums for both film and proccessing. Had they
priced it the same as 35mm then maybe it would have done better.
> Remember the itsy bitsy cartridge film that preceeded APS?
> Same question. And little square negatives?
Yeah, I had a Minolta 110 camera. I remember foolishly buying some slide
film for it, getting back slides with the tiny positive in a big square
of cardboard.
SMS
> Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge and
> heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the cube
> of the (linear) sensor size.
But the Micro 4:3 cameras suffer from many of the drawbacks of P&S
cameras, while the 4:3 SLRs aren't much smaller or lighter than the
smallest APS-C sensor bodies. I.e. the Olympus E-520 body is 16.2
ounces/52.5 cubic inches, the Canon XSi body is 16.7 ounces/48 cubic inches.
You're making it out to be full frame versus 4:3 but that's not being
honest. It's more of APS-C versus 4:3, with the option for the APS-C
users to move up to the bigger heavier full frame bodies in the future,
should they choose to do so. No sense locking yourself into the 4:3
system unless you're absolutely positive that you'll never want to move
up in resolution or down in noise.
About the only advantage of 4:3 at this juncture is that the lack of
demand has driven prices really low.
Bruce
>
>In article <4%Qwl.14767$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
>
>It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a large
>sensor and excellent lenses (due to the telecentric design).
>
>Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge and
>heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the cube
>of the (linear) sensor size.
But Four Thirds has never actually offered those claimed advantages.
The Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs are only very slightly smaller than the
small APS-C DSLRs from other manufacturers; the Pentax K-m and Nikon
D40X are tiny cameras.
The near-telecentric Zuiko Digital lenses are also surprisingly large
and heavy.
So the theoretical advantages of Four Thirds have never been delivered
in practice. Micro Four Thirds might offer them, but only at the
expense of losing reflex viewing. And the EVF in the Panasonic G1 is
far from convincing.
David J Taylor
[]
> Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge
> and heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the
> cube of the (linear) sensor size.
I used to think that about the volume and weight relationship to sensor
size, but it simply isn't reflected in reality (at least in the 16 - 300mm
range of lenses I use).
David
Alfred Molon
> But the Micro 4:3 cameras suffer from many of the drawbacks of P&S
> cameras,
How would you know, given that there is just one model on the market
right now.
If you are referring to contrast AF and the EVF, these are supposed to
be very good in the Panasonic G1. And in any case the minuscule optical
viewfinders in APS-C cameras are nothing to be too proud.
Olympus predicted that in the future contrast AF would substantially
improve and outperform phase AF in terms of accuracy and speed. Whether
this prediction comes true remains to be seen, but if so it would be a
major step forward in camera design, we'd finally have mirrorless
cameras.
> while the 4:3 SLRs aren't much smaller or lighter than the
> smallest APS-C sensor bodies. I.e. the Olympus E-520 body is 16.2
> ounces/52.5 cubic inches, the Canon XSi body is 16.7 ounces/48 cubic inches.
Actually the E420 and E620 are more compact and light - you should pick
these for your comparison. In any case there is not much size difference
in the bodies also because there is not much size difference in the
sensors.
> You're making it out to be full frame versus 4:3 but that's not being
> honest.
You're the one who constantly pulls out full frame cameras saying that
4/3 users are doomed and can't upgrade.
> It's more of APS-C versus 4:3, with the option for the APS-C
> users to move up to the bigger heavier full frame bodies in the future,
> should they choose to do so.
Well no, because many lenses for APS-C cameras are designed for the
smaller image circle and can't be used on full-frame cameras.
> No sense locking yourself into the 4:3
> system unless you're absolutely positive that you'll never want to move
> up in resolution or down in noise.
Unless you buy only full-frame lenses, you are also locked on an APS-C
format camera and have to replace all lenses when you move to a full-
frame camera.
Alfred Molon
> But Four Thirds has never actually offered those claimed advantages.
The E420 and E620 are very compact. Much smaller than for instance
Sony's APS-C line of DSLRs.
> The Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs are only very slightly smaller than the
> small APS-C DSLRs from other manufacturers; the Pentax K-m and Nikon
> D40X are tiny cameras.
See above.
> The near-telecentric Zuiko Digital lenses are also surprisingly large
> and heavy.
>
> So the theoretical advantages of Four Thirds have never been delivered
> in practice. Micro Four Thirds might offer them, but only at the
> expense of losing reflex viewing. And the EVF in the Panasonic G1 is
> far from convincing.
The advantage is better optical performance at wide angle and less
vignetting.
Regarding the EVF of the G1, have you actually ever used one? According
to the reviews it's quite good.
Besides, the tiny optical viewfinders of most compact APS-C DSLRs are
not good.
Kennedy McEwen
<alfred...@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <4%Qwl.14767$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
>
>It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a large
>
>Smaller sensors allow that.
Even Olympus took several years to directly contradict themselves. Only
their fanbois could manage that in two sequential sentences!
Bruce
>In article <kfq8s49pm173c9463...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> But Four Thirds has never actually offered those claimed advantages.
>
>The E420 and E620 are very compact. Much smaller than for instance
>Sony's APS-C line of DSLRs.
>
>> The Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs are only very slightly smaller than the
>> small APS-C DSLRs from other manufacturers; the Pentax K-m and Nikon
>> D40X are tiny cameras.
>
>See above.
Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
>> The near-telecentric Zuiko Digital lenses are also surprisingly large
>> and heavy.
>>
>> So the theoretical advantages of Four Thirds have never been delivered
>> in practice. Micro Four Thirds might offer them, but only at the
>> expense of losing reflex viewing. And the EVF in the Panasonic G1 is
>> far from convincing.
>
>The advantage is better optical performance at wide angle and less
>vignetting.
In theory. In practice, these are problems that largely don't affect
APS-C DSLRs and lenses.
>Regarding the EVF of the G1, have you actually ever used one? According
>to the reviews it's quite good.
Yes, I have used one. It's better than most EVFs but that isn't saying
much. It is extremely poor compared to a good reflex viewfinder.
>Besides, the tiny optical viewfinders of most compact APS-C DSLRs are
>not good.
Without any doubt, the worst optical (reflex) viewfinders of any DSLRs
were in the Olympus E300 and E330. None of the consumer-grade Four
Thirds DSLRs have had acceptable viewfinders. Only the E1 and E3
were/are at all satisfactory, although I haven't tried the new E30 yet.
I know you're an Olympus fanboi, but your assertions fly in the face of
the facts. The amount of light coming through a Four Thirds lens may be
sufficient to illuminate the small sensor, but it is not enough to
provide a bright reflex viewfinder image at a good magnification.
Perhaps the introduction of the Micro Four Thirds format shows that
Panasonic has finally recognised that fact? Will we ever see another
Panasonic Four Thirds DSLR? I very much doubt it.
Bruce
>
>Olympus predicted that in the future contrast AF would substantially
>improve and outperform phase AF in terms of accuracy and speed. Whether
>this prediction comes true remains to be seen
Olympus made an awful lot of predictions about the Four Thirds format.
In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.
David J. Littleboy
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
wrote:
You wouldn't be thinking about the 35-100/2.0, would you? The equivalent
lens on FF is the 70-200/4.0 (this gives the same IQ (photon shot noise) and
DoF). But the Oly lens is twice the weight and twice the price. Oops.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
David J Taylor
Oops, indeed!
David
Alfred Molon
> Olympus made an awful lot of predictions about the Four Thirds format.
>
> In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.
Make a few examples in which Olympus made wrong predictions.
The only thing where they made a mistake was when they chose 18x13.5mm
as the sensor size and shortly after that the whole industry
standardised around the APS-C sensor size (crop factor 1.5-1.7). Had
they chosen a sensor size with a crop factor of 1.5 instead of 2.0 this
entire discussion about the smaller sensors would have never started.
Alfred Molon
> Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
> APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
(W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
> >The advantage is better optical performance at wide angle and less
> >vignetting.
>
> In theory. In practice, these are problems that largely don't affect
> APS-C DSLRs and lenses.
Well, I have a Sony A350 with the 16-80 Zeiss lens here. Even using a
slim-line polariser filter I get unrecoverable vignetting in the corners
at wide angle. Unrecoverable means that with the RAW converter it is not
possible to remove the vignetting.
It is so bad, that I have to edit the corners manually with the clone
tool. I can post some example if you don't believe me.
In any case, it is obvious that when the image circle is bigger, the
lenses must have a larger diamater to give the same vignetting
performance. That is a simple law of physics.
nospam
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> > I used to think that about the volume and weight relationship to sensor
> > size, but it simply isn't reflected in reality (at least in the 16 - 300mm
> > range of lenses I use).
>
> You wouldn't be thinking about the 35-100/2.0, would you? The equivalent
> lens on FF is the 70-200/4.0 (this gives the same IQ (photon shot noise) and
> DoF). But the Oly lens is twice the weight and twice the price. Oops.
the amusing thing is that the 35-100 *is* a 70-200 with a
wide-converter at the rear. there are a few posts at dpreview
describing its design.
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
> > APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
>
> Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
>
> (W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
> Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
> Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
> Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
> Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
the nikon is 3.5mm narrower and 3mm taller. that's basically the same
size. the canon is 0.5mm narrower and 7mm taller, also insignificant.
the only advantage to the olympus is that is a little thinner but that
makes no difference once a lens is attached.
> 445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
> 624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
>
> That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
weight and volume of the body alone is irrelevant. attach a lens and
compare.
Bruce
>In article <p4q9s4ljja6eqk593...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> Olympus made an awful lot of predictions about the Four Thirds format.
>>
>> In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.
>
>Make a few examples in which Olympus made wrong predictions.
Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would take 25% of the DSLR market.
Wrong. Combined, Olympus and Panasonic have struggled to reach 5%.
Olympus predicted that 5 MP would be enough to attract pro shooters.
Wrong. Canon's pro camera jumped from 4 to 8 MP within weeks of the
introduction of the Olympus E1 and stole the market.
Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would enable the production of
smaller and lighter lenses with superior optical performance to those
for APS-C.
Wrong. The specialist Canon AF-S and Nikon DX lenses were just as
small, just as light, and performed so well they stole the market.
Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would become the format of choice for
pros because of the small, light and optically superb lenses.
Wrong. The only pros who used Four Thirds for more than a few months
were those who were sponsored by Olympus.
Olympus predicted that many other camera manufacturers would jump on the
Four Thirds bandwagon.
Wrong. Only Panasonic joined. Panasonic have all but abandoned Four
Thirds and have decided that the only way to realise the benefits of the
small sensor is to make non-SLR cameras without a reflex mirror.
Olympus predicted that many other lens manufacturers would jump on the
Four Thirds bandwagon.
Wrong. Only Panasonic and Sigma joined. Some Panasonic lenses had the
Leica name but they were neither designed nor manufactured by Leica.
None of the Sigma lenses was designed for Four Thirds - they are merely
adapted versions of Sigma's APS-C (DC) lenses using a Four Thirds mount.
Need I continue? The eventual destination of Four Thirds in 2009 is so
far away from what Olympus predicted that you can be sure they would
never have started on this path if they had known how desperately badly
they would miss their predictions.
>The only thing where they made a mistake was when they chose 18x13.5mm
>as the sensor size and shortly after that the whole industry
>standardised around the APS-C sensor size (crop factor 1.5-1.7). Had
>they chosen a sensor size with a crop factor of 1.5 instead of 2.0 this
>entire discussion about the smaller sensors would have never started.
Their mistake was in entering the DSLR market at all, when they had not
developed a new 35mm SLR for over a decade.
Bruce
>In article <9dp9s493dm2jjqgi8...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
>> APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
>
>Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
>
>(W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
>Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
>Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
>Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
>Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
>
>445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
>624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
>
>That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
Don't be ridiculous. Insignificant is *exactly* what it is.
The owner of my local camera store believes one of the reasons Olympus
DSLRs are difficult to sell is that they are too small for most people.
He says that people who handle the Olympus DSLRs in-store find the
controls too fiddly to operate.
He says that, in contrast, the Nikon D40X and the entry-level Canon
almost fly off the shelves because they handle so well. And as your
figures above comprehensively prove, they are plenty small enough.
Rob
As someone relatively new to using different lenses, I have to say the
initial surprise at the weight of my new 40D (compared to my old 300D)
was soon gone once I bolted a 18-200mm zoom on the end. If anything, the
additional weight helps balance IMHO.
Rob
Alfred Molon
> In article <MPG.242f46efd...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
> Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
> > > APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
> >
> > Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
> >
> > (W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
> > Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
> > Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
> > Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
> > Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
>
> the nikon is 3.5mm narrower and 3mm taller. that's basically the same
> size. the canon is 0.5mm narrower and 7mm taller, also insignificant.
Hi nospam, can you read? The Nikon is also 11mm wider. Also with the
Canon you missed the 3rd dimension.
Alfred Molon
> Olympus predicted that 5 MP would be enough to attract pro shooters.
>
> Wrong. Canon's pro camera jumped from 4 to 8 MP within weeks of the
> introduction of the Olympus E1 and stole the market.
Show me where they predicted that.
> Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would enable the production of
> smaller and lighter lenses with superior optical performance to those
> for APS-C.
>
> Wrong. The specialist Canon AF-S and Nikon DX lenses were just as
> small, just as light, and performed so well they stole the market.
And here they were right. Smaller sensor => smaller and more lightweight
lens.
> Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would become the format of choice for
> pros because of the small, light and optically superb lenses.
>
> Wrong. The only pros who used Four Thirds for more than a few months
> were those who were sponsored by Olympus.
Never heard of that prediction. Besides you are repeating yourself (see
above).
> Olympus predicted that many other camera manufacturers would jump on the
> Four Thirds bandwagon.
>
> Wrong. Only Panasonic joined. Panasonic have all but abandoned Four
> Thirds and have decided that the only way to realise the benefits of the
> small sensor is to make non-SLR cameras without a reflex mirror.
>
> Olympus predicted that many other lens manufacturers would jump on the
> Four Thirds bandwagon.
>
> Wrong. Only Panasonic and Sigma joined. Some Panasonic lenses had the
> Leica name but they were neither designed nor manufactured by Leica.
> None of the Sigma lenses was designed for Four Thirds - they are merely
> adapted versions of Sigma's APS-C (DC) lenses using a Four Thirds mount.
You are mixing up "prediction" with "marketing campaign".
In any case there is a demand for small and lightweight cameras with
DSLR-like performance. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge and
heavy backpack full of photographic gear.
Why would anybody want to carry around a heavy full frame DSLR when a
much smaller and lighter one is available and the image quality is
sufficient.
Alfred Molon
> Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <9dp9s493dm2jjqgi8...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
> >
> >> Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
> >> APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
> >
> >Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
> >
> >(W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
> >Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
> >Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
> >Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
> >Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
> >
> >445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
> >624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
> >
> >That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
>
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Insignificant is *exactly* what it is.
A 25% difference in volume is not insignificant.
> The owner of my local camera store believes one of the reasons Olympus
> DSLRs are difficult to sell is that they are too small for most people.
ROTFL. Then why do so many people buy small compact cameras?
nospam
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > (W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
> > > Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
> > > Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
> > > Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
> > > Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
> >
> > the nikon is 3.5mm narrower and 3mm taller. that's basically the same
> > size. the canon is 0.5mm narrower and 7mm taller, also insignificant.
>
> Hi nospam, can you read? The Nikon is also 11mm wider. Also with the
> Canon you missed the 3rd dimension.
not only can i read, but i can do simple subtraction too, and the 11mm
is *depth* not width.
width: 126mm versus 129.5mm, with nikon 3.5 mm narrower.
height: 94mm versus 91mm, with nikon being 3mm taller.
depth: 64mm versus 53mm, with nikon being 11mm thicker but that can
dramatically change depending on what lens is attached.
a 3mm difference in width & height is insignificant and probably would
not be noticed at *all*. even the 11mm difference in thickness is not
that big of a deal and as i said before, that can change, depending on
which lens is attached.
nospam
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why would anybody want to carry around a heavy full frame DSLR when a
> much smaller and lighter one is available and the image quality is
> sufficient.
because they want the image quality advantages that full frame offers,
particularly at higher isos, or they want less expensive wide angle
lenses.
Bruce
>In article <dvgas4h2g5928fhil...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>> Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <9dp9s493dm2jjqgi8...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>> >
>> >> Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
>> >> APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
>> >
>> >Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
>> >
>> >(W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
>> >Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
>> >Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
>> >Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
>> >Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
>> >
>> >445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
>> >624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
>> >
>> >That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
>>
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous. Insignificant is *exactly* what it is.
>
>A 25% difference in volume is not insignificant.
On the contrary, it is not significant because 7mm in height and 9mm in
depth are neither here nor there.
Your volume calculations are of course designed to mislead because the
EOS 450D has a grip whereas the E420 does not.
Bruce
>In article <8kfas4hmoa3j80l7t...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> Olympus predicted that 5 MP would be enough to attract pro shooters.
>>
>> Wrong. Canon's pro camera jumped from 4 to 8 MP within weeks of the
>> introduction of the Olympus E1 and stole the market.
>
>Show me where they predicted that.
The prediction was called "Olympus E1".
Alfred Molon
> because they want the image quality advantages that full frame offers,
> particularly at higher isos, or they want less expensive wide angle
> lenses.
For the overwhelming majority of people the image quality obtainable by
a 4/3 sensor (or even smaller) is more than sufficient. The number of
people who have more stringent image quality requirement is very small.
What you are referring to is the numerically very small market of pros.
Alfred Molon
> Your volume calculations are of course designed to mislead because the
> EOS 450D has a grip whereas the E420 does not.
These are based on data published on dpreview and are accurate.
Chris Malcolm
> Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Besides, the tiny optical viewfinders of most compact APS-C DSLRs are
>>not good.
> Without any doubt, the worst optical (reflex) viewfinders of any DSLRs
> were in the Olympus E300 and E330. None of the consumer-grade Four
> Thirds DSLRs have had acceptable viewfinders. Only the E1 and E3
> were/are at all satisfactory, although I haven't tried the new E30 yet.
> I know you're an Olympus fanboi, but your assertions fly in the face of
> the facts. The amount of light coming through a Four Thirds lens may be
> sufficient to illuminate the small sensor, but it is not enough to
> provide a bright reflex viewfinder image at a good magnification.
That might be the case with a specific lens, but generally speaking
there's no reason why the lenses can't be designed to provide as much
light for reflex viewfinders as you like.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> In article <9dp9s493dm2jjqgi8...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>> >The advantage is better optical performance at wide angle and less
>> >vignetting.
>>
>> In theory. In practice, these are problems that largely don't affect
>> APS-C DSLRs and lenses.
> Well, I have a Sony A350 with the 16-80 Zeiss lens here. Even using a
> slim-line polariser filter I get unrecoverable vignetting in the corners
> at wide angle. Unrecoverable means that with the RAW converter it is not
> possible to remove the vignetting.
> It is so bad, that I have to edit the corners manually with the clone
> tool. I can post some example if you don't believe me.
That sounds like a mechanical problem with the size of the edges of
the polarising filter combined with the angle of view of the lens, not
an optical problem.
Am I right in assuming that with no filter attached there is no bad
unrecoverable vignetting problem? If so, you might like to look into
the possibilities of using a wider polarising filter with a step up
conversion ring.
--
Chris Malcolm
Bruce
>In article <2lsas4tl30nj11h59...@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> Your volume calculations are of course designed to mislead because the
>> EOS 450D has a grip whereas the E420 does not.
>
>These are based on data published on dpreview and are accurate.
There are lies, damn lies, and "accurate" data.
Data can be used to inform, or mislead. You are using it to mislead.
Face it, you cannot adequately describe the size of a complex curved
shape such as a DSLR body by mere length, depth and height. I repeat,
the Canon "data" includes measuring a substantial hand grip that the
Olympus E4 20 simply doesn't have, so it is completely misleading.
But you knew that. Indeed, your intention throughout this discussion
has been to mislead people with unrepresentative data.
In the end, what matters is not your personal obsession with Olympus, or
my personal obsession with honesty and objectivity, and with your
apparent lack of either. The only thing that matters is the choice that
buyers make. And it is clear that only a vanishingly small number of
buyers choose Olympus over the only very slightly larger competition.
So when weighed against the significantly better image quality that
APS-C DSLRs can produce, we can conclude that the very slightly smaller
physical size of Olympus DSLRs is not a significant selling point.
Bruce
>
>For the overwhelming majority of people the image quality obtainable by
>a 4/3 sensor (or even smaller) is more than sufficient. The number of
>people who have more stringent image quality requirement is very small.
For the overwhelming majority of people the image quality obtainable by
a P&S sensor is more than sufficient. The number of people who have more
stringent image quality requirement is very small, and the huge majority
of those people choose DSLRs with APS-C and larger sensors.
And, for the avoidance of doubt, only a vanishingly small number of them
choose Four Thirds.