Increase in number of megapixels anytime soon?

[john_photos]

<p>Thought I would post this after going to some "rumors" sites to no avail.<br>

Anyone have any information or speculation on when Oly/Panasonic will raise the megapixel count in future models? <br /><br /><br>

16 megapixels is not enough for my needs for much of what I shoot. Please, no "my prints look great etc". Just a waste of bandwidth. I print large and currently shoot medium format and drum scan for large prints. Do not like the aspect ratio of conventional DSLR's and used to own some traditional 4/3rds gear that I really enjoyed using for small prints. In my head I'm thinking if micro four thirds reaches 20 or 22 megapixels it would meet my needs and I could retire some of my medium format gear. Really love the four thirds aspect ratio. </p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The difference between 16 and 20 or 22 (which I think they'll skip for 24 if they increase) is how many linear pixels? Exactly how big do you print, if I may ask?</p>

<p>Honestly, I feel like 16MP is bumping up against lens resolution in this format. The photosites are just getting SO SMALL at that point, too. And µ43 could have all the resolution in the world and there would still be a place for medium format for other reasons which I'm sure you know anyway.</p>

<p>I'm guessing anybody who has information isn't talking anyway, probably NDAs in force and such.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>There marketing departments will insist on more, but 16mp is the practical limit (really 12mp is enough). More than 16mp, other disadvantages start to overshadow any gains. More powerful computer needed, no more squeezing by on a five year old Mac, more storage, and on and on.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

It gets down to what number of megapixels is enough megapixels. Recall that the E-1 had a mere 5 megapixels and was yielding good results. And the E-1 still delivers as testified by current owners. So with the current 10-12-16, our cup runneth over. My speculation is that Olympus has desired to work on other variables, eg. optimize the lens array for its 4/3 sensor and make its processing better.

Lately I see discussions of wants going ahead about noise at high ISO levels and not about getting more megapixels per se. ( Hey, didn't I see a study that concluded that the current number of about 16 mp was equal in resolving power to medium format. Read that somewhere I am sure)

Professionals who are after ultimate crispness and tilts and shifts and the like can already buy digirtal Hassies, Leica MF or perhaps a Phase One digital large chip back for Mamiya ...for a price that makes one cough:-0. I think Olympus has eased off in the race to more and more megapixels and concentrated on other factors like size and functionality of its semi pro models. And serves different consumer markets than you to be frank. That suits me. I crystal ball that MF, which I used to shoot and liked a lot, is now aimed at a really thin slice of photo as we continue morph to digital capture over film scanning.

 

So if we are just betting on the future, I would say that we have reached a megapixel summit in Olympus's world.

 

Yes, I agree with you that the 4/3 aspect fits my taste as well...

[jcuknz]

<p>Once upon a time there was a formulae which matched sensor size against MP count which was very revealing [ Dpreview used it for awhile ] and when I did the maths involved I found my Canon s20 3.3Mp [ from which I made A3 prints when I got it right in other respects and interpolation ] rated a similar figure [ single] to the DSLRs and made my bridge cameras look rather sick ... though Canon's G and my Panasonic had figures close to 25 while the 'latest' were merely up in the fourties.<br>

My old brain has forgotten the formulae but I remember my satisfaction with the s20 rating with a DSLR and turning out wonderful results when I got it right occasionally.<br>

I'm currently a MFT user mainly and with its 14-140 lens is my " larger sensored bridge camera" I frequently pressed for on blogs in the old days but R&D went into super zooms with tromboning lenses, mores the pity ..... an old mans' rant :)</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The difference between 16mp and 22mp is so small, you would likely not be able to see the difference. You really need a doubling of the megapixels to '<em>notice</em>' any difference. And even then, the print size would have huge in order to even see the difference and you would have to be viewing the prints for 6" away.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that you can upsize files by about 20% using a program like Photoshop without any loss in IQ.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>Thank you for the great responses.<br>

Agree about the E-1 to a point. Yes, its sensor had a beautiful rendering. However, 5 megapixels is 5 megapixels. Great for photo journalistic web use but not good for much beyond 8x10 if your subject contains lots of detail. For portraiture the E-1 is a great well made weatherproof camera with some outstanding optics to go with it. <br>

I read somewhere a long time ago that Olympus had designed the original 4/3rds lens lineup (one would assume HG/SHG 'pro' glass) with thoughts towards a 20megapixel sensor. Curious if anyone has any additional information as the design targets for the micro four thirds glass?</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Actually, Olympus is on record as saying 12MP is all anyone needs in this format, so we're already beyond that. Never heard about the 20MP thing, but again the actual usable difference between 16MP and 20 is minimal.</p>

<p>I wouldn't expect much beyond 24. I doubt we need 24, but we'll get it, because marketing.</p>

[phule]

<p>I guess if you compare the pixel density of current 1" sensors from Sony, you could see a (not necessarily /the/) path forward for m4/3rds.</p>