Jump to content

Has the 4/3 sensor chip stalled at 8 MP?


Troll

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<I> 8 MP chip currently used in the E-300/500 just ain't gonna cut it.</i><p>

 

Why not? For the vast majority of people, 8 MP is plenty. I don't see much need for Oly to

try to compete with Canon & Nikon at the high end of the megapixel race. I don't think they

have the resources to build as vast a lens system as those two, and that's what will attract

most potential buyers of 12+ megapixel cameras.<P>

 

But who knows.... Olympus certainly goes its own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, for the vast majority of people 3 MP is overkill -- and will soon be able to get that in their cellphones. For a serious photographer to invest his resources (dedication as well as financial) in the 4/3 system, he'll have to have a lot more potential.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was film stalled at 35mm? I suppose that if they can resolve the problems of smaller, faster, cheaper (and I think cheaper is the big problem) then they might move on. Whether it's "real" or a number to count but not use, letting word get out that the next generation will have some perceived significant advantage over current product doesn't do much to for current sales.

 

Given how long so many dslrs were and are at 6 megs, 8 megs doesn't seem that bad a place to be. FWIW, I think the evolution to evn less noise and more usable higher iso's is a better way to go than just increasing pixel count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As E-1 owner, I also don't think the E-300/500 chip will cut it, but not because it is "only" 8MP. I don't have any desire in higher resolution than that. I recon the E-3 is so late because they want a better sensor, 8MP, but better otherwise.

 

The E-1 sensor has a quality that defies its 5MP and noise "problems", it just has a very good "look" that the E-300 sensor doesn't have. Oly needs a similar chip, but at 8MP for the E-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For a serious photographer to invest his resources (dedication as well as financial) in the 4/3 system, he'll have to have a lot more potential."

 

 

Uh huh. The problem is your premise.

 

 

Even with OM 35mm cameras, Oly never pretended to compete with Nikon or Canon for professional photographers. Oly has always made unique cameras for an ametuer niche market; and the E-series DSLRs are no different.

 

 

I've never known a professional or semi-professional photographer who's shot Olympus. I don't expect that to change.

 

 

With the advent of the Canon's EOS 5D, a serious, full-frame DSLR at a less insane price, people in the business are coming to the conclusion that the the APS-C chip may go the way of APS film within a few years. If the 5D eats up market share, Nikon will have to respond. My best guess is that Oly's 4/3 cameras and lenses will go the way of Oly's 35mm AF cameras and lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the E-300/500 already have the smallest pixels in the DSLR industry, at 5.3 microns. With a small sensor, the 4/3 system is always going to be at a disadvantage against competition with larger sensors in terms of the balance between pixel count and pixel size.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that kind of thinking, Guys, Leica would have never sold their first 35mm camera. I've been through two systems with Olympus (Pen F half frame SLR in the '60s and OM-1 in the '70s), and they suited me much better than the "bigger and better" Nikon F system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, you have probably never run into (m)any travel photographers then, I guess. :) The OM system seems to be very popular for that use. Met quite a few of those users, actually.

 

I am sure 4/3 will go the way of OM-AF, just don't know when. I am hoping it'll be long enough for me to get an E-3 at a good price, which should then last me another decade. After that, if there is no more FourThirds, I may have to switch to one of those sub-optimal "full frame" sensors and matching lenses that are either a) heavy and expensive or b) small and crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill: Except that Leicas were smaller and lighter than cameras that used a larger format, whereas 4/3 cameras aren't. The D50 or 350D contain sensors that are significantly larger than 4/3 without being themselves larger or heavier.

 

Bas: or c: good and cheap. $170 buys a normal lens for a 350XT with a 10mm aperture diameter. $80 buys a normal lens for my 5D with a 28mm aperture diameter. $500 buys a normal lens for 4/3 with an 8mm aperture diameter. I'll pit a 50/1.8 on my Canon 5D any time against any current 4/3 lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I've been through two systems with Olympus (Pen F half frame SLR in the '60s and OM-1 in the '70s), and they suited me much better than the 'bigger and better' Nikon F system."

 

 

Bill the Pen Fs and OMs were cute little rigs in their day. As has been mentioned, the E-series DSLRs are neither cute nor little. They are as big as Nikon and Canon's smallest DSLR offerings, while having smaller chips. As you wonder aloud, it is an open question how much more resolution can be crammed onto such a small chip.

 

 

Also, E-series accesories (like flashes) are overpriced, even relative to Nikon and Canon's offerings. No one's stopping you from sinking money into a 4/3 system; but you can't expect too many others to follow.

 

 

"Eric, you have probably never run into (m)any travel photographers then, I guess. :) The OM system seems to be very popular for that use. Met quite a few of those users, actually."

 

 

Could you name a "travel photographer" of note who shot OM cameras and link to his work? I guess my idea of "travel photography" is National Geographic, and I've never heard of anyone like Bruce Dale shooting Oly 35mm gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Even with OM 35mm cameras, Oly never pretended to compete with Nikon or Canon for

professional photographers. Oly has always made unique cameras for an ametuer niche

market; and the E-series DSLRs are no different."

 

I disagree completely. Olympus targeted the Nikon F2 and Canon F1 when they made the

OM-1. They offered a truly mind-boggling amount of special purpose gear, and it was all

made to professional standards. If you are at all familiar with the OM system I can't see

why you would make such a statement.

 

Olympus abandoned the OM system and BECAME a company that targets amateurs, but

they certainly could compete with the best from Nikon and Canon and Minolta and Pentax

back before the AF days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew, I've worked part time in camera stores for about 25 years. Olympus' modest line of cameras, lenses and accessories has never boggled my mind. I'm unaware of any Olympus OM shutter being made to take the cycles of a Nikon F-whatever shutter. Look at any photo showing a group of sports or press photographers from the 70s and 80s. You'll see Nikon and Canon- not Olympus OM. Again, the OM line was a moderately successful line with ametuers.

 

 

The new E-line is no different. It is not being marketed to professionals and isn't being bought by pros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's that, like a UFO sighting? J'ever notice with Olympus discussions it's always <i>"I know some guy who shoots professional with an Olympus"</i>...never first person.<P>

 

 

Minolta and Olympus users used to follow myself and other press staff like groupies when I shot sports for the local paper. As soon as we'd step back from the side-line for a second some uber dork wearing a loud shirt and using an Olympus/Minola/Pentax would try to engage us in some irrelevant discussion about how his alternative SLR with some special metering feature or flash logic and his K-mart power grip was superior than our F3's and F-1's.You guys still haven't changed :-) For controlled lighting/studio, I'll take a D-reb 300 over <b>any</b> 3/4 sensor based camera Olympus has ever made, and this includes Olan Mills and their pixelated E-1 work that they actually charge clients for.<P>I can honestly see the popularity of the 3/4based Olympus cameras for landscape/travel work, and know they excel in that function. It's not the sensor, but Olympus paying closer attention to the integration of sensor and lens vs Nikon and Canon dumping coke-bottle lens kits on the market. Want to see what chromatic aberation is? No need to use a dictionary - just look for a sample shot of Canon's 24mm on 1Ds Mk II.<P>As Jean-Baptiste mentioned, sensor densities are already too high, and you'd have to have a screw lose to want more sensor density with the 3/4 sensor anyways. I guess with 10megapixels on that new E-3 you could brag to the pros shooting 1D's and 1D II's that you have more megapixels than they do while they nervously shuffle to another side of the stadium. I honestly think the E-500 is more of an improvement over prior 3/4 cameras than the 10D MK II (20D) was over the standard 10D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep - lack of noise at medium/high ISOs is more important to me than the pixel count (and people seem to want 5Ds/full frame because of the better viewfinder [and hopefully more accurate autofocus] more than anything else; the extra resolution is a bonus). The resolution of the 4/3 sensor isn't really limiting, but the noise definitely is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...