Anything greater than 12.3 Mp DSLR?

<!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

<p><!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--><!-- [endif]--><br>

Since Canon announced the D7 (soon to be released) with the following key features:<br>

<br /> 18MP APS-C CMOS sensor<br /> 8 frames per second continuous shooting<br /> 1080p HD video recording with manual controls<br /> 3.0 inch Clear View II LCD screen with 920,000 dots<br /> 19-point AF system (all cross-type)<br /> 1.0x magnification and 100% coverage viewfinder<br /> Wireless flash control<br /> Environmental sealing…<br>

<br /> I’ve been concerned about the Olympus 4/3 future cameras. Currently, I have the E-3 and E-30 and for the most part, these cameras have been wonderful to use in weddings, landscapes, portraits and other assignments. I use several Olympus glass, both digital and OM. And I have adapted the Hasselblad/Carl Zeiss 80mm Planar T* for the E-cameras. The HLD-4 power pack makes for exceptionally fast AF and extended battery usage; more than 700 images per charge.<br>

<br /> Has Olympus max’d out on 12.3 Mp in the 4/3 format? Is it physically possible to increase the megapixels up to 15 or 18 Mp?<br>

<br /> Will Olympus make an attempt to compete against Canon’s medium-pro cameras such as the 50D and 7D?</p>

<p>Will Olympus find a way to increase the ISO and enhance resolution (low noise)?<br>

<br /> I used to be at crossroads. I was one-time considering the Canon 50D over the Olympus E-30. But I would have had to start from scratch with a new system of lenses, on camera flash units, filter size difference, battery chargers, etc. I settled with the E-30 and I’m quite impressed with the art filters.</p>

It's obviously physically possible to increase the pixel count, but given their recent comments, I doubt they'll do it. If you've just got to have more, time to start shopping for a different system.

 

If you want better noise performance, presumably you shouldn't want them to increase the pixel count. The E-P1 images look another step better to me than the previous DSLR output, so if you want improved ISO performance, you may have some basis for hope.

<p>Thanks for the response, David, I guess the old Bronica ETRSi will have to fill in for the larger image sizes... convert to digital from the film and then produce image sizes well beyond 12.3 Mp. <br /> <br /> I was looking at the possibility of a good DSLR for studio work. The E-30 is good enough for 11x14 prints. But, I still would like to have something that would get me up to 24x36 without pixelization.<br>

I guess Olympus is not considering any competition with Canon or Nikon in this respect.<br /> <br /> It's just that I have too much invested in the Olympus E-3 and E-30 system. I even have an SCA adapter for the Olympus/Metz 45 CL-4 flash units. It's not fully TTL. I use the Metz flashes as battery operated strobes on the JTL umbrella stands, including radio trigger system.<br /> <br /> Perhaps, the Canon D7 with a 28-135 lens could be that studio camera... oh well.<br /> <br /> Does the E-P1 use the same sensor as the E-30? They are both 12.3 MP sensors.... right?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Suppose Olympus comes out with a 15 megapixel camera.</p>

<p>How much better will that be than your 12.3 one? You'll gain 500 pixels on the long side and 300 on the short side. Instead of being able to print 9.5" x 14 at 300 dpi, you'll be able to print 10.5" x 16 at 300 dpi.</p>

<p>I seriously doubt you'd be able to see the difference in anything less than a 16x20 print. If you a routinely making large print sizes, I'd question whether the 4/3 format is best suited for your needs.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

If you consider 12MP (your E-30) good only to 11x14, then to get 24x36 at the same resolution, you need about 4 times more pixels. But nobody (yet) makes 50MP DSLRs.

<p>I think Olympus should focus on small cameras with 4/3 size sensors with reasonable Mp counts. Seems they are doing that. This is what most people need. Those who need more, should get a full frame camera or medium format. I sometimes need more than 10-12 and I have a Sony A900 for that. But for most uses E-3 is plenty enough. I could easily foresee a wedding photographer using a SonyA900/850, Canon 5D2, Nikon Fx00 (whatever they call it) with full frame 20+Mp sensor for the formal portraits and a 10-12Mp 4/3 system for the rest of it. Canon's new 7D is a strange animal. It is out of line with their old naming convention and tries to unnecessarily cram too many pixels on APS size chip. A bit like the G10 that then was upgraded by G11 with a more reasonable pixel count. Sometimes enough is enough and anything more is too much.</p>

<p>here's a 22mp digital slr...<br>

http://www.mamiya.com/mamiya-zd-back-accessories.html#Overview</p>

<p>The 4/3 format isn't intended for super large enlargements, it's targetted at the amateur market who are unlikely to enlarge any bigger than 11x16 so I don't really see Olympus (or other 4/3 camera manufacturers) trying to design the cameras with 24x36 enlargements in mind. You also have to consider the capabilities of the lenses as well as the sensor.</p>

<p>Professional "35mm style" digital slr's are going full frame sensors, this indicates to me that the smaller sensors don't cut it for professional work and that there are advantages with increasing the sensor size with the same amount of megapixels.</p>

<p>For big enlargements, I still stick with film, either my RB67 or a 4x5 camera. The medium and large format digital backs are far to expensive to make them worth while for me. The resolution you get with a 6x7cm negative exceeds anything I've seen in a digital camera (the MF digital backs may be an exception to this however I haven't looked at them in great detail). Partially due to the size of the film and partially because the lenses on medium format cameras are always top notch and are designed with big enlargements in mind.</p>

<p>Long story short, I wouldn't hold your breath for a 4/3 camera capable of doing 24x36 enlargements.</p>

<p>I shoot the 5DII and the Panasonic G1 digitally. I bought the G1 to use old FD lenses but it is a great camera. With good FD glass on it (The standard 14-45 kit lens is pretty poor) at low ISO and with good light it is a pretty impressive camera. If you are ISO 100 -200 and in LV 12 or better it takes shots that hold up well against the 5DII (currently Canon's best sensor) so long as you keep the print around 10"x8". Indeed the UK magazine Amatuer photographer founr the G1 performed as well as the Nikon D3 at low ISo and in bright light in instrumented testing. Where the 4/3 and m4/3 system falls apart is higher ISo performance - the trade off is it's small size and weight. I bought the G1 as a toy but find I carry it quite a lot as it is a very handy package. The additional issue with m4/3 is the limited (and poor) lens range and an AF system that seems to be worse than manual focus - the G1 with kit lens can barely track a walking subject and is a lot worse than the 5D II (which has a lot weaker AF than my 1 series bodies and will probably have a much weaker AF than the 7D).</p>

<p>Unless you want to crop a lot or enlarge a lot 12.3 MP is enough for must uses. the real 4/3 issue is poor light / high ISO performance - the benefit is small size and weight. Remeber Nikons award winning and excellent professional DSLR is 12 MP (the D3) and big enlargements or landscape shooting aside it is not clear why you need much more.<br>

I expect the market to become bi-polar and fragement into smaller and more compact bodies using EVFs (like Micro 4/3) and high resolution full frame bodies with a limited range of APS - C bodies.</p>

<p>I agree with most of what Philip said. </p>

<p>Bring on the swivel TFT, live view, EVF, adaptability and provide better signal/noise characteristics (in place of video and "combo cams"). :-)</p>

<p> I would take a better camera over a machine that will take pictures/videos/show a clock/play songs and perhaps could be even used as a phone.. wait that now sells for $59, does it not?! Apple has covered that market fellas (at Pana/Oly). Just work on the camera..</p>

<p>Megapixel races do have a real life physical enemy. Diffraction limited lenses may help extend the range, but eventually, the waves and the pixels catch up, and you get mush. Sure, the technology may go far enough to make 128MP 4/3's cameras... but what good is a camera you can only shoot at f/2 or faster?</p>

<p>On the issue of 4/3 high iso performance? is this a problem with the format or a certain manufacturers implementation of the format? Can the 4/3 sensor be improved to provide better high iso performance? I think perhaps only an engineer may be able to answer that. I think Ken's original post asks if it's possible to improve the high iso performance of the format (not an evaluation of the 4/3 performance versus other formats).</p>

<p>My personal opinion is that 4/3 is a compromise of a full frame sensor, coming from shooting film and knowing the difference that film size makes (ie. 135 vs 120 vs 4x5 vs 8x10), this makes a lot of sense to me. For this reason a 4/3 system is low down on my list due to the size of the sensor. The number of megapixels isn't too important to me because the quality of the sensor and the quality of the lenses often have a higher influence in overall image quality.</p>

<p>Don't worry. When the cost of producing large sensors comes down significantly, Panasonic will churn out the Super 4/3 sensor.</p>

<p>Olympus has stated publicly that they are not pursuing a higher megapixel count. You can read Akira Wantanabe's statement here</p>

<p>http://www.cnet.com/8301-13951_1-10189546-63.html</p>

<p>Rich,<br /> <br /> Thanks for the link to the artcle. There's a good amount of information as to where Olympus is headed in the 4/3 future. <br /> <br /> I can understand Olympus' position, that most photographers find 12.3 Mp more than adequate. However, putting the 4/3 sensor aside, I noticed that the statements made by Akira Wantanabe or the questions aimed at him did not reveal that there <strong>may be</strong> plans for another Olympus line to go full frame, a new line of lenses, and compete against the big boys, Nikon and Canon. It was completely ignored.<br /> <br /> Marketing strategies will have to change, because the newer high-end DSLRs are increasing Megapixel capacities and prices are dropping. The E-series cameras will have to be reduced in price in order to compete. Nikon and Canon will end up with the DSLRs with greater megapixel capacities and features that will outweigh whatever competition offers. Olympus will be left in the dust if they don't get their act together in time.<br /> <br /> Don't get me wrong, folks. What Olympus has now is great. For the most part, I have no complaints about the capabilities of the E-3 and E-30 DSLRs. I'm looking at the need of producing images beyond 11x14 and with cropping as a factor. That means if Olympus has max'd out at 12.3 Mp, then an alternate means is necessary. As I've stated in a previous posting, I may as well use my Bronica ETRSi (4.5x6 format) or the old Hassey (6x6 format) to obtain larger prints.<br /> <br /> Again, thanks for the article. It was very insightful.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have little need for more than 12 Mpixel images. More pixels allows more cropping room, and perhaps more detailing when you shoot landscape work and want to print HUGE sizes, but that's not my work. I consider such large images a specialty endeavor ... If I want to get into that business, I'll buy a camera for that purpose. </p>

 

<p>Godfrey, I realize many folks such as yourself don't have the need for anything more than 12 Mp images. But you have to ask yourself, why are the Nikon and Canon makers adding new DSLR models that exceed 12 Mp? <br /><br>

It's not so much a specialty but am additional feature. The newer models allow for the user to select smaller image sizes. Granted, the DSLRs that offer 15-21 Mp serve the professionals more so than the weekend photographer. But they provide the feature of cropping without loss of resolution and distortion (noise).<br /> <br /> With the E-3 and E-30, 10.1 Mp and 12.3 Mp respectively, I often find myself taking several shots of a subject with variations on focal length, thus cropping and/or composing on the spot. Then I use Photoshop for the selected shot with minor adjustments to cropping.<br /> <br /> I would like to see Olympus come out with a full-frame DSLR camera, somewhere between 21-24 Mp that would knock the socks off the big boys and give us Olympus die-hard fans something to grow within our photographic abilities.</p>

 

<p>[[but you have to ask yourself, why are the Nikon and Canon makers adding new DSLR models that exceed 12 Mp?]]</p>

<p>Because they're being driven by Marketing instead of common sense. </p>

<p>I agree with Rob. The push to ridiculous numbers of pixels is marketing at the simplest, dumbest level, the "<strong>more is better</strong>" approach with a simple number that people think they understand, and that marketing can hype. </p>

<p>I'm a professional photographer. My work has appeared in advertising spreads, book covers, and editorial uses in publication. I sell fine art prints up to and including 20x24 inch in size. I have some very discerning, sophisticated clients ... they let me know what they think very honestly and without reservation. I've never received any comments related to lack of sharpness or quality issues even with 5Mpixel original exposures. </p>

<p>More pixel resolution is useful, as I said above, for some types of work. I would certainly want higher resolution cameras if I were doing that work. If I get into a business that requires that, I'll buy a camera that delivers what I need. </p>

<p>I have zero interest in whether or not Olympus makes a so-called "full frame" camera. If they do, fine. If not, no matter. I am no brand's "die-hard fan". My interest is to produce compelling photographs that please me and my customers. If a brand-name manufacturer wants to pay me to promote their products, I'll do so only assuming I can tell the truth: I have to like them, use them, find them advantageous to my photography. </p>

<p>I chose this format because I like its capabilities and the relationship between field of view and depth of field it offers, and because Olympus and Panasonic/Leica have produced excellent bodies and lenses that work well for my photography. The format, the cameras, the lenses have proven to meet my needs and expectations well.</p>

<p>If they didn't, I'd buy something else. It's that simple. </p>

<p>Well yes marketing and because they CAN. Hopefully if Olympus caps MP at 12 they can focus on reducing noise. If the next five years is spend focused completely on noise reduction the way the previous five years has been spent on pixel count, then by the mid 2010's digital cameras will be able to push the limits of photography instead of just playing catch-up with film. A 4/3's size camera producing a detailed and beautiful 12mp image in virtual blackness beyond human eyesight would certainly be amazing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because they're being driven by Marketing instead of common sense.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is the bane of Oly and Pana as well. How else can one explain the "combi-cams" and matching colored straps/accessories while completely forgetting a lens-hood (the 17/2.8 and the kitzzoom for the E-P)?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>digital capture exceeded film's capabilities about six years ago by my reckoning, patrick. </p>

<p>IMO the easiest answer is Canon 5DII...Pentax K20D, despite being APS, outperforms the original 5D in most image respects, even at letter size (higher detail resolution but less "smooth" in bigger prints) ...at infinitely lower price (amazingly lower considering the Limited lenses, which may be beyond Canon L). The old 5D has that Canon/smoothness factor, thus wonderful for skin...it's a bargain for that purpose, used.<br>

I think 5DII is the first prosumer DSLR to effectively equal film overall (though many have long approximated it in certain situations). If I was as young and stupid as I was 30 years ago, paying my bills with commercial photography, I'd bet the farm financially and switch to Canon 5DII for starters, hoping to pay the rent long enough to move to a more professional Canon. Nikon and Canon make sense in a professional career context, the others struggle... but they're all great for "art."<br>

If money wasn't an object, and it never has been for successful established professionals, I suspect the Leica M9 would be my preference, just as Hassleblad and mechanical Nikon/Canon were in their day.</p>

<p>Exceeded film's capabilities in what exactly? What type of film? Resolution? enlargement size? look & feel? high iso / low iso performance?</p>

<p>I wouldn't say that medium format or large format negatives have been exceeded by Digital (yet!). Pro photographers still use these formats as there aren't really any mainstream digital cameras on the market that can match the resolution of the larger negative sizes.</p>

<p>Also, certain 35mm films have higher resolution than 12.3Mp digital based on the MTF response curves you can calculate the pixels per inch.. For Fuji Velvia you get around 5.3MP on a 35mm transparency which supports your argument, however for Kodak TMAX 100 you get much higher resolving power (around 80MP on a 35mm negative)</p>

<p>The most boring discussion in photography today is "film vs digital". I refuse to participate in it anymore. Film is dead. blah blah blah. </p>

<p>godfrey, you were the one who brought it up, what do you expect?</p>