so Olympus after all used Panasonic sensor in E-M1 (Chipworks confirmed)

[Vladimirovich]

so Olympus after all used Panasonic sensor in E-M1 (Chipworks confirmed)

here is the sensor = http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf  ( MN34230PL )

here is what ChipWorks found = http://chipworks.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=OLY-E-M1_Pri-Camera

what a bummer, Sony Semi after all was not able to edge Panasonic out of sensor for cameras

PS: that by the way means that technically E-M1 sensor can do 4K video, just the camera can't

[Glenn NK]

so Olympus after all used Panasonic sensor in E-M1 (Chipworks confirmed)

here is the sensor = http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf  ( MN34230PL )

here is what ChipWorks found = http://chipworks.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=OLY-E-M1_Pri-Camera

what a bummer, Sony Semi after all was not able to edge Panasonic out of sensor for cameras

PS: that by the way means that technically E-M1 sensor can do 4K video, just the camera can't

You might add quite a few others to the list while you're at it (Exmor in Nikon, etc., etc., etc.).

[Vladimirovich]

You might add quite a few others to the list while you're at it (Exmor in Nikon, etc., etc., etc.).

what Exmor in Nikon has to do with Panasonic (instead of Sony) in Olympus ? the big break Olympus got was with (replacing Panasonic sensors with) Sony sensor in E-M5 ( https://chipworks.secure.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=SON-IMX109 ) and now the crown jewel of Olympus is back to Panasonic... competition is good... Sony has to work harder to get back

[bcooter]

so Olympus after all used Panasonic sensor in E-M1 (Chipworks confirmed)

snip

PS: that by the way means that technically E-M1 sensor can do 4K video, just the camera can't

Well, maybe thats it.   At this point I've tested the em-1 to the em-5 and for stills prefer the em-5.  It's not a 200% difference, but it's a difference.  The em-5 has that special look, the em-1 looks good, obviously the camera is slightly more full featured, but it's doesn't shoot the same stills look.

The em-1 does shoot better video, which might make senses seeing the Panasonic has weighted their cameras to video production, but that's just a guess.

That wouldn't keep me from buying an em-1, but given my choice the em-5 shoots a prettier file and works really well picking up singular colors rather than global.


IMO

BC

[BJL]

so Olympus after all used Panasonic sensor in E-M1 (Chipworks confirmed)
...
PS: that by the way means that technically E-M1 sensor can do 4K video, just the camera can't

And likewise (if this is indeed the sensor in the GH4) "technically GH4 sensor can do PDAF, just the camera can't."

An interesting divergence, based maybe on different priorities in where their R&D efforts go. That is, maybe both 4K video and PDAF also require significant development work on the software and/or extra off-chip hardware resources, and Olympus and Panasonic respectively do not yet see those efforts leading to sufficient ROI in their target markets.

The good news is that two major sensor makers are competing effectively for the MFT sensor market.

[Vladimirovich]

And likewise (if this is indeed the sensor in the GH4) "technically GH4 sensor can do PDAF, just the camera can't."

any sensor can do PDAF because (except Canon) PDAF is done on top of the sensor by playing with CFA...

[BJL]

any sensor can do PDAF because (except Canon) PDAF is done on top of the sensor by playing with CFA...

Agreed. Nevertheless, it is interesting that Panasonic has chosen not to pursue on-sensor PDAF even while manufacturing a sensor for Olympus that can support this.

Maybe this is a good thing: we now have three different approaches to improved AF in non-SLRs being tried:
- PDAF via dual photosite pixels (Canon 70D)
- Depth from defocus (Panasonic GH4)
- PDAF via modified CFAs over some AF photosites (the rest)

By the way, depth from defocus is not a new idea; it has been around for many years as a way to get depth information and even reconstruct a 3D image from a single camera at a single position by comparing several images that differ only in the camera being focused at different distances. But so far it seems mostly to have been used in special applications like machine vision; Panasonic is the first to try to adapt it for use in a "mainstream" camera.

[Vladimirovich]

Agreed. Nevertheless, it is interesting that Panasonic has chosen not to pursue on-sensor PDAF even while manufacturing a sensor for Olympus that can support this.

there was a discussion on dpreview where DFD was touched (see the middle of the thread , skip the noise) = http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3620166 (unless you were there)

By the way, depth from defocus is not a new idea; it has been around for many years as a way to get depth information and even reconstruct a 3D image from a single camera at a single position by comparing several images that differ only in the camera being focused at different distances. But so far it seems mostly to have been used in special applications like machine vision; Panasonic is the first to try to adapt it for use in a "mainstream" camera.

somebody mentioned in that dpreview thread

[BJL]

there was a discussion on dpreview where DFD was touched (see the middle of the thread , skip the noise) = http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3620166 (unless you were there)

It's good to see some discussion of prospects for DFD, but that thread mostly consists of ignorant speculation and references just one of hundreds of papers on the subject, and I suspect many of the posters think that that one paper is the starting point of the DFD idea, whereas it actually goes back many years earlier. I prefer digging a bit deeper, via Google Scholar, even if I often only understand the abstracts:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=depth+from+defocus&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C41&as_sdtp=

For example, here is an abstract from 21 years ago, about a working fast DFD AF prototype:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=223176&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D223176

[Vladimirovich]

It's good to see some discussion of prospects for DFD, but that thread mostly consists of ignorant speculation and references just one of hundreds of papers on the subject, and I suspect many of the posters think that that one paper is the starting point of the DFD idea, whereas it actually goes back many years earlier. I prefer digging a bit deeper, via Google Scholar, even if I often only understand the abstracts:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=depth+from+defocus&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C41&as_sdtp=

For example, here is an abstract from 21 years ago, about a working fast DFD AF prototype:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=223176&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D223176

so it was build on a sound ground then   just 20 years from some prototype (one team) to a working commercial system (from a consumer electronics company) then... not bad.