Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?  (Read 13957 times)

PSA DC-9-30

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« on: February 01, 2008, 01:33:30 am »

Well, we have the relatively new Canon 1Ds Mk. III with 21 MP, a new Sony-going-to-be-used-in-Nikon 24.8 MP CMOS, and even some new Pentax dSLRs with upped pixel count. All the while, Olympus' most recent pro dSLR has only 10. I guess 10-12 MP is what the market seems to have settled on for entry-level to semi-pro dSLRs at the moment, but for how much longer? As someone who has yet to buy a dSLR, I like what I've read about the Olympus E-510, the E-3, and Oympus lenses a great deal (and I used Olympus film SLRs for years), but I do lust after high pixel counts (I love large prints), and I wonder what the realistic limit is for the four-thirds system.

Do you expect higher resolutions from Olympus in the coming months, or years? What about an E-510 replacement or something to fill the gap between the E-3 and E-510? Thoughts on this?
Logged

John Sheehy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 838
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2008, 01:45:15 am »

Quote
Well, we have the relatively new Canon 1Ds Mk. III with 21 MP, a new Sony-going-to-be-used-in-Nikon 24.8 MP CMOS, and even some new Pentax dSLRs with upped pixel count. All the while, Olympus' most recent pro dSLR has only 10. I guess 10-12 MP is what the market seems to have settled on for entry-level to semi-pro dSLRs at the moment, but for how much longer? As someone who has yet to buy a dSLR, I like what I've read about the Olympus E-510, the E-3, and Oympus lenses a great deal (and I used Olympus film SLRs for years), but I do lust after high pixel counts (I love large prints), and I wonder what the realistic limit is for the four-thirds system.

Do you expect higher resolutions from Olympus in the coming months, or years? What about an E-510 replacement or something to fill the gap between the E-3 and E-510? Thoughts on this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's no reason why 4/3 can't come up with pixel pitches the same as APS-C, and with the same pitch, the 4/3 will have slightly less pixels, as it is really not that much smaller, area-wise, than APS-C as implemented, especially in the Canons.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2008, 04:57:36 am »

There's not much difference between the format size of the 4/3rds and Canon cropped formats (loosely APS-C). It's mainly a difference in aspect ratio so I see the competition between these two formats being a battle of the lenses. I get the impression that current EF-S lenses are no match for Zuiko lenses.

However, comparing the E-3 with FF 35mm is a bit like comparing the 1Ds3 with the P45+. The E-3 might compare favourably with the 2+ year old 5D which has only a marginally greater pixel count, just as the 1Ds3 with a good lens might compare favourably with a P21, but ultimately I think the 4/3rds system will be seen for what it is; a smaller format with the advantages and disadvantages that all small formats have.
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2008, 12:02:00 pm »

Olympus plough their own furrow.  There is a lot more to a good camera than ever more pixels, and the E-3 has a superior format apsect ratio more akin to 645.  So far so good for the E-3 and I would assume the format is good for around 20mp, possibly more.  Let's cut the pixel envy down to size.

Quentin
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 12:03:44 pm by Quentin »
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2008, 01:12:54 pm »

Quote
Olympus plough their own furrow.  There is a lot more to a good camera than ever more pixels, and the E-3 has a superior format apsect ratio more akin to 645.  So far so good for the E-3 and I would assume the format is good for around 20mp, possibly more.  Let's cut the pixel envy down to size.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why do you assume that?
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2008, 01:48:52 pm »

Quote
Why do you assume that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which, format shape or mp?  On mp, I assume MF 645 digital backs are probably fine for about 80mp, so drop down from that - 35mm 40mp, 4/3 20mp, all very rough figures, and just a guess based on likely current lens resolving limits and acceptable noise from high pixel density sensors.

I find four thirds and 645 aspect ratio more useful than 35mm aspect ratio.

Quentin
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 01:49:53 pm by Quentin »
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2008, 02:54:22 pm »

Pardon a well-worn analogy, but 35mm film SLR's never matched medium format SLR's for image resolution (in digital newspeak, "pixel count"); the smaller format built and held its rather substantial place in the film camera market on advantages on other respects like lower size, weight and cost. I expect the same for mainstream DSLR formats (from DX to EF-S to 4/3) relative to the larger, high end formats, 24x36mm and up.

One more US$3000-8000 (your guess!) DLSR in 24x36mm format, this time from Sony, is not going to have any significant effect on the market for distinctly smaller formats like 4/3, EF-S or DX: my guess is that both market sectors will continue to grow healthily. The D300, E-3 and 40D all testify to the vigor of the smaller DSLR formats, 5D and D3 notwithstanding.

(I will not say much about my guess that very few SLR users will ever get much benefit from more than 20MP, or perhaps even much more than 10MP: our eyes are not get sharper with the passing of time, or the walls of our homes much bigger.)
Logged

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
    • http://
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2008, 03:21:47 pm »

Well Sony is going to test the market on your theories. By releasing the A300 & A350, both of which have a superior implementation of Live View, but are separated by cost and pixel count  only, they are going to see if the entry level to slightly advanced market is just motivated by pixels as opposed to pitch which I assume will have some effect on noise/ISO quality. By keeping their cards close to the vest as to whether the FF model will have LV and more importantly will be a truly professional model or "flagship" a la Canon 5D. So who knows if it will be called A800 or A900. They appear to be segmenting the DSLR market very finely much like Canon did to point & shoot.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2008, 08:48:01 pm »

MP-wise, the megapixel race is dying down among people who know what megapixels actually mean IQ-wise, and while I wouldn't be terribly surprised if ~25 mp can be squeezed into a 4/3 sensor, I suspect most would be perfectly happy with no more than 15. The 7mp I have to work with is quite adequate for most things, but I don't print often and I don't print large. Still, I have confidence that I can do up to 12x16s and that's enough to keep me happy for now.

Between the smaller formats, I suspect that it'll be the lenses which become the deciding factor in the future, in which case Olympus has some pretty good footing.

Sony's new live view is cut-and-paste from Olympus' E-330 (which I use), and I have to say that I find that particular version of live view implementation to be incredibly useful, so I really hope Olympus doesn't abandon that route... If I could afford to be invested in 2 systems, I'd go with Sony for the superior live view and eventually FF, and Olympus for the superior glass and potential for extremely compact packages.

4/3 can certainly meet the average user's need where mp are concerned, but it won't be for everyone. Other factors will become more important.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2008, 11:52:09 am »

Quote
Well Sony is going to test the market on your theories. By releasing the A300 & A350, both of which have a superior implementation of Live View, but are separated by cost and pixel count  only ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sony's offering 10MP@3fps or 14MP@2fps is in interesting experiment. Maybe Sony and Canon are guessing that many entry level buyers are more easily attracted by high pixel counts than the advanced amateur market (14MP A350 vs 12MP A700, 12MP 450D vs 10MP 40D, 10MP 400D vs 8MP 30D).

I would not call Sony's version of Live View "superior": it is better for the auto-focus snap-shooting of its target market, but worse for manual focus and such due to the inability to zoom the Live View image, and through preventing the use of a penta-prism VF. So it is perhaps well-suited to entry-level models, but not higher quality models.

It is thus not surprising that Sony has apparently indicated at PMA that the coming flagship model will not have Live View. Also, Sony has described that flagship model with words like "pro, but not top pro", so I am guessing at roughly the 5D price range, meaning $3,000-4,000, not 1Ds or D5 price level.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2008, 04:22:10 pm »

Quote
I would not call Sony's version of Live View "superior": it is better for the auto-focus snap-shooting of its target market, but worse for manual focus and such due to the inability to zoom the Live View image, and through preventing the use of a penta-prism VF. So it is perhaps well-suited to entry-level models, but not higher quality models.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Horses for courses, I suppose. My E-330's live view A, which is basically the same thing, is not great for manual focus, and you can't zoom the live image, but if that were the intended use, the tilt LCD would be pointless, because it would be used on the tripod.

This form of live view is meant for shooting from angles where you can't look through the vf (and right angle finders aren't nearly as versatile). You don't want to lose AF and metering capabilities, but you can't look through the finder. That's the point of this form of live view, not just "snap-shooting." This kind of live view has enabled me to make photographs I couldn't have made before, and which would have been a serious pain with the typical live view.

Olympus seems to have left it behind, so I'm really glad somebody took the time to implement it. If they offered main-sensor live view as well in the same camera, that would be even better, but might require some compromises in sensor quality, and I'm sure that with a 14mp APS sensor they need to make it the best they can IQ-wise.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2008, 04:59:44 pm »

Quote
This form of live view is meant for shooting from angles where you can't look through the vf (and right angle finders aren't nearly as versatile). You don't want to lose AF and metering capabilities, but you can't look through the finder. That's the point of this form of live view, not just "snap-shooting."[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed: it is not good _only_ for snap-shooting. It is good for some other uses like those you mention, but not for ones that rely on manual focusing. And the optical viewfinder is also hampered for manual focus by the need to use a  penta-mirror instead of a penta-prism, and the choice of a low-magnification in the A350, to fit the extra sensor in without too much of a hump.
 
Quote
... main-sensor live view ... might require some compromises in sensor quality[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really; this myth needs to die. CMOS sensors inherently have all the wiring needed to support a video viewfinder with no compromises in quality. (Do you think that Canon is compromising IQ in the 1DsMkIII for the sake of its not very flexible Live View?) However, Sony's CCD sensor designs seem unsuited to main-sensor Live View. Note that almost every recent DSLR with CMOS sensor offers main sensor Live View, but not any of the ones with (Sony) CCDs.

Maybe a future Sony DSLR with a CMOS sensor will add main sensor Live View --- and higher level models might drop the current system, which prevents the use of a penta-prism viewfinder.
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2008, 07:07:54 pm »

I dont think Olympus has to get into a war. They are offering a unique product. I recently saw and handled a E-410 and my god, what a wonderful little camera. It was very small , compact and light but felt "sturdy" and very well made with just the right ammount of buttons in the right places. It seems like a great camera for travel and to take anywhere. A digital Rebel, while small is larger/clunkier and doesnt feel nearly as well made or well designed (it isnt neat like the Olympus). To add to that the Olympus was about $600 with 2 kit lenses, IMHO its a bargain.

Im sure IQ cant challenge a 5D or even a Digi Rebel but man, it seems quite good from what ive seen online and either way much much better than what comes out of the tiny sensor digicams.

So the Olympus strength is the small dslr and lenses which the e410 perfectly expemplifies in body or kit form.
Logged

Hank

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2008, 07:14:40 pm »

Boil it down and "successfully competing" means enough customers slapping cash to make the venture profitable-  irrespective of pixel count.  If their line offers attractive features with sufficient pixels to get the job done- all at a competitive price point- they'll compete just fine.  There's more to winning a war than body count....... er, pixel count.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2008, 09:16:54 pm »

Quote
I recently saw and handled a E-410 and my god, what a wonderful little camera. It was very small , compact and light but felt "sturdy" and very well made with just the right ammount of buttons in the right places. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And that's what counts, isn't it? If the camera feels right in the hands and feels well-made, then we know that the images are going to look right and appear well-made. It's only logical, isn't it?  
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2008, 09:32:38 pm »

Quote
And that's what counts, isn't it? If the camera feels right in the hands and feels well-made, then we know that the images are going to look right and appear well-made. It's only logical, isn't it? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The size of the viewfinder in that camera is measured in angstroms.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2008, 05:34:19 pm »

Quote
And that's what counts, isn't it? If the camera feels right in the hands and feels well-made, then we know that the images are going to look right and appear well-made. It's only logical, isn't it? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sarcasm noted, but the Panasonic 4/3 livemos sensors in the E-410 and E-510 have proven quite competitive IQ-wise with similar models like the rebel xti and d40x. Shooting in jpeg at low ISOs you can actually get higher resolution due to Olympus providing the option to completely turn off NR, which results in a somewhat noisier picture (which is pretty much unnoticeable at low ISO) but preserves an amazing level of detail. Of course, shooting in RAW eliminates this advantage. Even so, while the high-ISO performance has generally been seen as slightly inferior to the APS-C offerings (though some find it superior after shooting with both, but you'd have to ask them how that works), and DR slightly lower (shooting in RAW fixes this), the margin of difference between the sensors' IQ is almost invisible. Insignificant enough that I know you can get better results with the E-410 and kit lens in good light than you can with the xti and kit lens in the same light, due to the canon kit lens being notoriously soft and the Oly kit lens testing out as best in class. That's the real reason to buy Olympus, not high ISO or megapixels: the glass. Even the cheapest glass is often best in its price range.

So while one may not cause the other, you will, with Olympus, get a camera that feels right and well made, and get images that are right and well made as well. Assuming you know how to make a decent photo?

btw, I've been pampered for years by big OM pentaprisms, and I find the small viewfinder on my E-330 (even smaller and dimmer than the E-410) doesn't bother me at all. And the E-3 fixed that anyway, which is likely to trickle down to cheaper models.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2008, 07:16:46 pm »

Quote
Insignificant enough that I know you can get better results with the E-410 and kit lens in good light than you can with the xti and kit lens in the same light, due to the canon kit lens being notoriously soft and the Oly kit lens testing out as best in class. That's the real reason to buy Olympus, not high ISO or megapixels: the glass. Even the cheapest glass is often best in its price range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd go along with that. There's no substitute for a good lens. The Canon cropped format sensor is only a millimetre or so greater in height than the 4/3rds sensor. A Zuiko lens has to be only marginally better than the Canon equivalent to produce equally sharp results compared with an xti. I've often thought it a pity that Zuiko lenses cannot be used on Canon cropped format cameras using an adapter. Vignetting in the corners might be no worse than with current EF-S lenses and centre sharpness would presumably be better.

However, comparing the 4/3rds format with FF 35mm is another story. To get the same resolution with sensors of similar pixel count, the Zuiko lens has to be twice as sharp as the Canon equivalent.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2008, 03:21:36 pm »

Quote
I'd go along with that. There's no substitute for a good lens. The Canon cropped format sensor is only a millimetre or so greater in height than the 4/3rds sensor. A Zuiko lens has to be only marginally better than the Canon equivalent to produce equally sharp results compared with an xti. I've often thought it a pity that Zuiko lenses cannot be used on Canon cropped format cameras using an adapter. Vignetting in the corners might be no worse than with current EF-S lenses and centre sharpness would presumably be better.

However, comparing the 4/3rds format with FF 35mm is another story. To get the same resolution with sensors of similar pixel count, the Zuiko lens has to be twice as sharp as the Canon equivalent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true, but FF and 4/3 aren't exactly direct competitors. 4/3 vs. APS-C is really where the competition is, and at the moment most of the money is behind APS-C, so that's the biggest threat to 4/3. That and the fact that they decided to go with panasonic for their sensors... the high ISO banding issue is a real pain, though I've been able to work around it with little trouble. What I want to see is a 4/3 WYSIWYG evf with a secondary sensor for the display, similar to the E-330 and new sonys, with a main sensor from kodak or fuji (kodak has a good record here), optimised to get the best quality per pixel rather than live view. Put that in a small but still grippable, tough package, and that could make me very happy... heck, give the LV sensor IR capability, and you could in theory use it in lower light levels than an optical viewfinder...

Olympus will fail if they try to compete in the mp wars. What they need is something unique that plays to the strengths of 4/3 and will set them apart from their competitors. And I don't want them to fail, as I love their products...
Logged

Atlasman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
    • http://www.josephferrari.com
Can Olympus compete in the pixel wars?
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2008, 06:04:49 am »

Quote
Well, we have the relatively new Canon 1Ds Mk. III with 21 MP, a new Sony-going-to-be-used-in-Nikon 24.8 MP CMOS, and even some new Pentax dSLRs with upped pixel count. All the while, Olympus' most recent pro dSLR has only 10. I guess 10-12 MP is what the market seems to have settled on for entry-level to semi-pro dSLRs at the moment, but for how much longer? As someone who has yet to buy a dSLR, I like what I've read about the Olympus E-510, the E-3, and Oympus lenses a great deal (and I used Olympus film SLRs for years), but I do lust after high pixel counts (I love large prints), and I wonder what the realistic limit is for the four-thirds system.

Do you expect higher resolutions from Olympus in the coming months, or years? What about an E-510 replacement or something to fill the gap between the E-3 and E-510? Thoughts on this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Their battle is not with the full-frame format. Resolution is important, but should not come at the expense of image quality. I think we are far from "realistic limits".
 
The marketplace is changing, I think Oly needs to redefine their flagship.

For starters, they need to strip away legacy from the era of film. Oly has done a great job of stripping away at such legacy, but it hasn't gone far enough.

I believe Oly needs to create a new class of camera--take existing E-3 sensor and processing engine and repackage in a small (510 size would good) electronic viewfinder (WYSIWYG) based body that uses the 4/3rds interchangable lens format--this could become the DSLR killer.  
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up