Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: John Camp on December 29, 2018, 03:14:52 pm

Title: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: John Camp on December 29, 2018, 03:14:52 pm
I've got both Nikon (D800, D3) and m4/3 systems. I mostly use the m4/3 as I shoot a lot of street. My question is, what are the m4/3 sensor possibilities? They seem stuck at about 20mp, and even the new (rumored) Olympus E-M1x uber m4/3 has a 20mp sensor. I'm not a technical guy, but I understand there's a quality trade-off between pixel size and the number of pixels on a sensor; that is, for the same physical size, a sensor can have fewer but better pixels, or more but less good pixels. Is 20mp about as good as it's going to get with m4/3? On the other hand, cell phones must have tiny pixels and they still get decent results -- could some of that tech be applied to m4/3 sensors to increase quality? I'm not unhappy with my GX8s, but I worry about further investing in a system that could find itself left behind, especially when Nikon (in particular) really seems to be setting itself up for the future with small bodies, relatively compact lenses and those large diameter lens mounts.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: DP on December 29, 2018, 03:33:02 pm
further investing in a system

you "shoot a lot of street" with m43 - how much of "investment" that will be ? one body, couple of lenses ? why do you need to continually "invest" in m43 for that purpose ... and why'd you need more than D3 amount of mp for that ?
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: TonyVentourisPhotography on December 29, 2018, 04:59:50 pm
18-24 mp is a sweet spot for a lot of people.  Regardless what the internet looks like...a lot of people including working pros and publishing/printing photographers use and prefer that range.  It’s plenty for a lot of people. A solid sensor at that level is more than welcome.  If gains come elsewhere, great. 

I have a latest gen cell phone and I must say for me personally, the images look good on a cell phone screen and small web form...but the detail is still even a far cry from m4/3 much less any larger sensor.  Maybe a 14 print from the best capture... but cell phones still just don’t do it for me.

I use medium format digital and m43 daily.  95% of my shoots are with the e-m1 mk2.  The shoots that specifically need high megapixels, or other medium format specific features are not very common.  I use them back to back on shoots too.  I think ide rather see improvements in other areas versus just raising megapixels. 
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 29, 2018, 05:01:40 pm
John, THIS LINK (http://photoseek.com/2013/compare-digital-camera-sensor-sizes-full-frame-35mm-aps-c-micro-four-thirds-1-inch-type/) has a good visual that shows what the limitations might be for various sensor sizes.  If you scroll down to the table you can see what the area is for M4/3 sensor (225 square mm) compared to a 35mm full frame sensor (860 square mm).  A 20 mp M4/3 sensor is already pretty tightly packed and there may not be enough room with existing technology to increase the mp count.  Of course, things are highly dependent on the use you have for the camera and how big an enlargement is desired. 
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Aram Hăvărneanu on December 29, 2018, 05:58:09 pm
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: scooby70 on December 29, 2018, 06:45:21 pm
I suppose the tech we're seeing in smartphones and their cameras will eventually be included in the sort of cameras we like too but in the meantime I'm happy enough. MFT gives me better image quality than I ever got from 35mm film and my current cameras, GX80 and GX9, are I'm pretty sure better than the 5D I had not so long ago.

Being realistic on image sizes and viewing helps too. I've never printed larger than A3 and I don't expect heavy crops to be printed large either but I do find that even 100% crops are fine for screen viewing.

I do hope MFT continues. I have a Sony A7 too but I've been with MFT since the GF1 and still like the system for its compact size and weight and responsiveness.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on December 29, 2018, 07:01:47 pm
My current "phone" packs 12mp into a sensor just under 17 square mm. Wonder what the yields would be like on m43-sized pieces of such high photosite density wafers?

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: John Camp on December 29, 2018, 10:25:49 pm
you "shoot a lot of street" with m43 - how much of "investment" that will be ? one body, couple of lenses ? why do you need to continually "invest" in m43 for that purpose ... and why'd you need more than D3 amount of mp for that ?

Actually, I have two GX8s and a dozen lenses; if the whole shooting match goes obsolete, it won't be worth much as a trade-in. And like everybody else, I'd like the best picture quality I can squeeze out of a body/lens that works for me. [Meaning compact.] M4/3 comes up a bit short (compared to some other recent tech) in things like low-light shooting. I actually have two f/0.95 lenses that help with that, but I'd prefer working with zooms. M4/3 has quite good lens sets, and I'm thinking of investing in a Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 Asph, which costs about $1,000, but if the sensor tech has stalled out, the money might be better spent elsewhere. I may be wrong, but the Nikon Z7 is not a heck of a lot bigger than the GX8 (and size is a big deal to me) and I already have a half-dozen good quality Nikon lenses. But at that point, for two Z bodies, adapters and lenses, we're talking $6K-$8K...
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: John Camp on December 29, 2018, 10:33:26 pm
My current "phone" packs 12mp into a sensor just under 17 square mm. Wonder what the yields would be like on m43-sized pieces of such high photosite density wafers?

-Dave-

This sort of the basis of my question. Holding the physical sensor size steady, how likely is it that better near-term tech will allow more high quality pixels to be placed on those sensors, or, holding the number of pixels steady, how likely is it that the light-gathering response will improve. (Or both?) It seems to me that cellphone tech may be better that what we're seeing in these smaller-format cameras, and if imported, might improve photo quality rather markedly. But, I know **** about photo tech and maybe that's just not in the cards. I was wondering if anyone had any idea about this.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: RichDesmond on December 29, 2018, 10:43:12 pm
My current "phone" packs 12mp into a sensor just under 17 square mm. Wonder what the yields would be like on m43-sized pieces of such high photosite density wafers?

-Dave-

I'm thinking that the "yield" would be a bunch of m4/3 lenses that sorely lack the resolution needed to make said sensor anything more than a novelty.  ;)
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: johnvanatta on December 30, 2018, 01:20:05 am
If I'm going to shoot street, I'd much prefer my Oly EM1.2 over my Nikon Z7. Even the EM1.1 probably wins. They are smaller, lighter, cheaper, more customizable; and have faster small lenses and better autofocus in low light. What do you need more than 20MP for anyway? Resolution mostly makes a difference in very fine detail. Foliage and rock faces in landscapes, for example. Unless you're trying to get the fine detail of cement sidewalks, I think it'll largely irrelevant in street shooting.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on December 30, 2018, 02:40:08 am
If I'm going to shoot street, I'd much prefer my Oly EM1.2 over my Nikon Z7. Even the EM1.1 probably wins. They are smaller, lighter, cheaper, more customizable; and have faster small lenses and better autofocus in low light. What do you need more than 20MP for anyway? Resolution mostly makes a difference in very fine detail. Foliage and rock faces in landscapes, for example. Unless you're trying to get the fine detail of cement sidewalks, I think it'll largely irrelevant in street shooting.

I use a different crop sensor system to you, APSC. Other than that inconsequential difference I agree with everything you say here. I don’t just agree with it, I actually think you make very important points.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Herbc on December 30, 2018, 11:23:46 am
The question is really: image or picture?  If you can't hold it in your hand, it is not a picture. The best part of FF is the forgiveness when the shadows need to be opened up and the blown highlights need to be toned down.  Other than that, if you only have images, the small sensor will do very well indeed.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: faberryman on December 30, 2018, 11:27:09 am
If I'm going to shoot street, I'd much prefer my Oly EM1.2 over my Nikon Z7. Even the EM1.1 probably wins. They are smaller, lighter, cheaper, more customizable; and have faster small lenses and better autofocus in low light. What do you need more than 20MP for anyway? Resolution mostly makes a difference in very fine detail. Foliage and rock faces in landscapes, for example. Unless you're trying to get the fine detail of cement sidewalks, I think it'll largely irrelevant in street shooting.
Great, use you Oly EM1.2.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on December 30, 2018, 12:35:48 pm
The question is really: image or picture?  If you can't hold it in your hand, it is not a picture. The best part of FF is the forgiveness when the shadows need to be opened up and the blown highlights need to be toned down.  Other than that, if you only have images, the small sensor will do very well indeed.

Not following you. Image and picture are synonyms in my world and can be used interchangeably in most cases. Do you mean a picture is a print? And an image is electronic? Are you then saying that a crop sensor doesn’t give enough quality to print?
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: gkroeger on December 30, 2018, 02:04:54 pm
Seems to me that the real issue is who has the resources to invest in MFT.  Sony and Canon are the two largest sensor manufacturers, and neither have any vested interest in MFT. Panasonic is enamored of full frame with their new alliance. What can Olympus afford to invest and what returns can they expect?

Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on December 30, 2018, 02:33:07 pm
Seems to me that the real issue is who has the resources to invest in MFT.  Sony and Canon are the two largest sensor manufacturers, and neither have any vested interest in MFT. Panasonic is enamored of full frame with their new alliance. What can Olympus afford to invest and what returns can they expect?

Exactly my thoughts. Olympus imagining division has been sliding for years now while their other devisions have been on a roll...where do you think Olympus's focus will be. Yes Panosonic has switched gears and highly doubt they can equally contribute to both formats...m4/3 will lag.

I personally would not switch to a M4/3 system now. If you already have m 4/3 gear, use it, but I'd stay clear of high priced items.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Dan Wells on December 30, 2018, 02:46:17 pm
I'd agree with Hogloff - use it (the E-M series are great street cameras), but I'd be careful about big new purchases - wait to see how Panasonic plays out (do they go all FF, or keep up both lines), and does Olympus keep releasing cool quick, compact bodies?

In almost no case does it make sense to get rid of a camera you still like and use - its value as a tool generally exceeds its market value...

Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: mecrox on December 30, 2018, 03:55:57 pm
I'd agree with Hogloff - use it (the E-M series are great street cameras), but I'd be careful about big new purchases - wait to see how Panasonic plays out (do they go all FF, or keep up both lines), and does Olympus keep releasing cool quick, compact bodies?

In almost no case does it make sense to get rid of a camera you still like and use - its value as a tool generally exceeds its market value...

Rather my position with two Oly cameras now much used and long out of warranty. But something is holding me off replacing them. They still do the job, very well for the most part too.

My concern is that Oly may find it very tough to fund R&D and marketing with a probably less active Panasonic and the three main industry juggernauts now really piling it on over larger-sensor mirrorless cameras. Between them, Canon, Nikon and Sony command about 90 per cent of everything. I do like Olympus kit a lot but times for the smaller camera companies are hard, I suspect. Just getting heard must be a struggle. We’ll see. I’d be reluctant to change brands unless things head really south.

To get back to the original question in the thread, I don’t see the point of looking for more than 20-24 mpx from M43. For many that’s enough and if it isn’t then go for a larger format. Wouldn’t  there be horrid diffraction problems with, say, a 40mpx M43 sensor? Plus, to handle that you’d likely have to have very high-quality and therefore very expensive lenses?
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Two23 on December 30, 2018, 04:06:13 pm
I like the size of the little cameras, and they just look cool. 8)  If the prices on them were to start to crash I'd probably buy one and three lenses.  I don't see what the big deal is about "full frame", even though I have one.  The small cameras are perfect for when you want a compact system, such as for high altitude hiking or "street".  I now use small cameras for street, mainly a Leica IIIc, Baby Rolleiflex, or Rolleiflex MX with black & white film.  They have no built in meters though, and I generally shoot Ilford FP4 in them.  For night use on streets I think an M43 camera with three fast lenses would be just the thing!  The cameras are great as they are.  From my POV, the camera is the least important thing in photography anyway.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: johnvanatta on December 30, 2018, 04:23:14 pm
I wouldn't worry too much about sensor development. Bayer filtered CMOS is by now a very mature technology. It was roughly four years between the EM-5 and the next sensor generation in the Pen-F, and while the difference is there under scrutiny, it's not noticeable for a great many photos. Street photography is particularly forgiving, since actually obtaining peak IQ is so difficult. A slight miss in focus matters more than a few MP on the sensor. The next sensor generation, still a few years out, will have an even smaller delta compared to what's currently available.

If there's some completely new sensor technology that m43 isn't getting, that'd be the time to consider switching. I've read plenty of rumors about organic and curved sensors. But neither is in mass production anywhere, and likely won't be for years. And Panasonic is one of the leading developers of organic sensors--if anything, m43 would get them first.

Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on December 30, 2018, 05:03:10 pm
For me the sensor issues raised here are mostly matters of curiosity. I don't feel there's anything significant lacking in the current 20mp m43 sensor(s). Though with a super-high photosite density sensor, Olympus and/or Panasonic could explore oversampling techniques. This might lead somewhere useful.

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: DP on December 30, 2018, 06:56:43 pm
Sony and Canon are the two largest sensor manufacturers, and neither have any vested interest in MFT.
Sony Semi is sensor manufacturer - it makes sensors for anybody who buys, including Sony Imaging, Canon, Olympus & Panasonic, etc... as such they do not have any vested interest in anything other then to sell as much as they can to whoever buys
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on December 30, 2018, 07:35:38 pm
Sony Semi is sensor manufacturer - it makes sensors for anybody who buys, including Sony Imaging, Canon, Olympus & Panasonic, etc... as such they do not have any vested interest in anything other then to sell as much as they can to whoever buys

Right...they will happily continue to sell you 2015 sensors...but do you think they'll spend a lot of R&D designing new sensors for the likes of Olympus...especially if Panasonic lose interest in M4/3.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: BJL on December 31, 2018, 12:46:19 am
Though I see little need in going beyond 20MP (or even 16MP), I will point out that internet pundits have been declaring that an increase in pixel count in 4/3” format will lead to hopelessly bad noise and DR ever since the original 5MP CCDs, and the lens resolution limit of the format was for a long time declared to be 12MP. The sensor shift high res. modes show that >40MP is possible with good current lenses, even if not of much interest to most ILC users.

So pesssimsts, please back your predictions with science.

P.S. 20MP sensors in 1” format scale to about 35MP in 4/3”
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: mecrox on December 31, 2018, 05:40:43 am
Though I see little need in going beyond 20MP (or even 16MP), I will point out that internet pundits have been declaring that an increase in pixel count in 4/3” format will lead to hopelessly bad noise and DR ever since the original 5MP CCDs, and the lens resolution limit of the format was for a long time declared to be 12MP. The sensor shift high res. modes show that >40MP is possible with good current lenses, even if not of much interest to most ILC users.

So pesssimsts, please back your predictions with science.

P.S. 20MP sensors in 1” format scale to about 35MP in 4/3”


But isn’t a sensor shift-high res-image made up of lower-res images so the lens never has to resolve more than the pixels on the sensor? But maybe I have this wrong.


Anyway, I doubt science will play much part in any outcome. That will be decided by consumer preference and sheer financial firepower. Oly versus everyone else, now everyone else has piled into mirrorless, is a tough fight. Everyone else has common formats. Only Oly stands aside. M43 has worked extremely well for me and still does, but now I’m leery of putting more into the platform which I never thought I would be. There is quite a chance we’ll all end up on FF whether we like it or not, imho.





Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: BJL on December 31, 2018, 11:46:30 am
@mecrox,

the sensor shift high res mode cannot create detail that is not present in the image delivered to the focal plane, so those high res images are a legitimate measure of the quality of the image delivered by the lens.

Also, Panasonic has clearly not abandoned MFT: it is running two very different formats with different pros and cons. Just like everybody including Fufifilm
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Aram Hăvărneanu on December 31, 2018, 11:50:07 am
You can't know what Panasonic will do with MFT.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: faberryman on December 31, 2018, 12:25:40 pm
You can't know what Panasonic will do with MFT.
Panasonic has had some very successful m43 cameras and has a good working partnership with Leica for lenses. I can't see them abandoning  that in the near term. m43 is a different market than FF, particularly with the SR1 body clocking in a $4500.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: John Camp on December 31, 2018, 01:57:28 pm
I really hope Panasonic stays with m4/3. It has the economic and engineering firepower to support the system. The thing I don't understand about camera manufacturers right now is that they put out quite good small cameras, like the RX100 and its rivals, for which there still seems to be a steady market, but when they get to ILCs, they want to go big -- if the rumors about the new uber Oly are correct, it's essentially the size and weight of a small DSLR...I think it may come in larger than a Z7, though the smaller m4/3 lenses will help. And the new FF Panasonic...what's all that about? Why would Panasonic want to go head-to-head with established FF makers like Nikon, Canon, and Sony, and the well established APSC of Fuji? It seems crazy. It simply seems to me that there could be a good long-term market for a small, precise, high-quality mirrorless system that would look a lot like the GX8 with lenses that look exactly like the m4/3 lenses. I understand that some people need the big bazookas -- especially landscape guys and maybe sports photographers. But really, how many landscape photographers are there? When I was working for a newspaper back in the 90s, the paper bought F4s and then F5s for staff photographers, and the photographers were buying N90s on their own because they could do most everything the F5 could do, with a fraction of the weight. I guess we'll see. I'm really pulling for m4/3, though. In in traveling to New York last summer, I literally carried an m4/3 system in a Dopp Kit -- two bodies, three lenses, two extra batteries and a charger. 
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: BJL on December 31, 2018, 02:46:13 pm
You can't know what Panasonic will do with MFT.
It’s a glib truism that we cannot predict with certainty, but I am going on (a) Panasonic’s own statement that MFT and “L” serve distinct markets [to me, an obvious fact], and (b) the absurdity of the strangely fashionable idea that any ILC maker is going to abandon its far higher volume, higher revenue smaller format for a high-end 35mm format ILC only strategy—especially not one that is likely confined to fourth place in that sector behind C/N/S
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on December 31, 2018, 02:59:12 pm
@mecrox,

the sensor shift high res mode cannot create detail that is not present in the image delivered to the focal plane, so those high res images are a legitimate measure of the quality of the image delivered by the lens.

Also, Panasonic has clearly not abandoned MFT: it is running two very different formats with different pros and cons. Just like everybody including Fufifilm

In a declining market like the camera market...how much of their limited R&D budget do you think they'll spend on MFT versus their new venture? Obviously they weren't all that happy where MFT was taking them or they wouldn't throw their hat into the FF ring.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on December 31, 2018, 03:35:47 pm
It’s a glib truism that we cannot predict with certainty, but I am going on (a) Panasonic’s own statement that MFT and “L” serve distinct markets [to me, an obvious fact], and (b) the absurdity of the strangely fashionable idea that any ILC maker is going to abandon its far higher volume, higher revenue smaller format for a high-end 35mm format ILC only strategy—especially not one that is likely confined to fourth place in that sector behind C/N/S

How many MFT cameras do you think Panasonic sells in a year? I believe Olympus outsells Panasonic and here are some numbers for Olympus:

FY 2018 number sold:  420,000
FY 2018 revenue: 468,000,000 yen

FY 2019 estimate number sold: 370,000
FY 2019 estimate revenue: 373,000,000 yen

A decline of 12% in units sold and 20% in revenue.

Now do you see why Panasonic might be looking elsewhere ::)

Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on December 31, 2018, 03:49:09 pm
My suspicion is that Panasonic sees the L system, in the longer term, as mainly a video platform. In the meantime, though, they can be a patient player in the 35mm game, maintaining a stable foothold in case there's the kind of shakeup amongst the current Big Three that they judge as working to their advantage.

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on December 31, 2018, 03:55:28 pm
FY 2018 number sold:  420,000
FY 2018 revenue: 468,000,000 yen

FY 2019 estimate number sold: 370,000
FY 2019 estimate revenue: 373,000,000 yen

A decline of 12% in units sold and 20% in revenue.

Let's see if the actual numbers match these estimates before drawing conclusions from them. Estimated by whom?

Not that the numbers would surprise me. Camera segment sales are declining…and "full frame" is unlikely to be a safe haven.

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: DP on December 31, 2018, 04:37:24 pm
Right...they will happily continue to sell you 2015 sensors...but do you think they'll spend a lot of R&D designing new sensors for the likes of Olympus...especially if Panasonic lose interest in M4/3.

1) you really do not know what Sony designs now, you only know what they sell or announced already

2) they announced new 43 sized sensor which is not yet in any released dSLM ( https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor2/products/index.html )

3) R&D is not exactly different & separate per each sensor... technologies like multiple ADCs on die, dual gain, BSI, stacking are developed and then implemented across all sensor sizes/manufacturing facilities gradually

4) they designed 11mp 43 sensor for a very niche subset of small segment of m43 cameras


Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on December 31, 2018, 05:58:05 pm
Let's see if the actual numbers match these estimates before drawing conclusions from them. Estimated by whom?

Not that the numbers would surprise me. Camera segment sales are declining…and "full frame" is unlikely to be a safe haven.

-Dave-

These numbers right from Olympus financial presentations. The outlook for FY2019 has been adjusted down in November from their previous estimate in August:

FY2019 projected units sold down from 520,000 ( Aug ) to 370,000 ( Nov )
FY2019 projected revenue down from 474,000,000 ( Aug ) to 373,000,000 ( Nov )

Not a pretty picture.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on December 31, 2018, 06:03:02 pm
1) you really do not know what Sony designs now, you only know what they sell or announced already

2) they announced new 43 sized sensor which is not yet in any released dSLM ( https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor2/products/index.html )

3) R&D is not exactly different & separate per each sensor... technologies like multiple ADCs on die, dual gain, BSI, stacking are developed and then implemented across all sensor sizes/manufacturing facilities gradually

4) they designed 11mp 43 sensor for a very niche subset of small segment of m43 cameras

Logic only says that Sony would go after the big fish first...and leave the crumbs for others to scramble over. Olympus camera market share in 2018 is only 3.5%...and is projected to only sell 370,000 cameras. That's minuscule compared to the other areas Sony deals with. Since Panasonic sells even less cameras than Olympus...I can't see Sony giving the M43 market much attention.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: RichDesmond on December 31, 2018, 06:47:24 pm
For me the sensor issues raised here are mostly matters of curiosity. I don't feel there's anything significant lacking in the current 20mp m43 sensor(s)...

-Dave-

Totally agree. I’ve been using m4/3 for 8 years now, and even the original 12mp sensor did most of what I needed. With the newer 16 and 20mp sensors A2 prints look great, and I’ve certainly never run into a situation were I was thinking, “Jeez, if I just had a better sensor this shot would be possible.”  ;)

Some other random thoughts:

Whoever said earlier in this thread that the camera was the least important thing was exactly right.

m4/3 has always been a bit player in the digital ILC universe, so I don’t quite understand how its current market share is a portent of doom.

This site’s slow drift into the hardware/technology oriented abyss continues.  :(
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: BJL on December 31, 2018, 07:14:40 pm
Logic only says that Sony would go after the big fish first...
Logic says that with enough resources, a sensor maker will go after as many markets as are profitable, and Sony’s _two_ new sensors for MFT suggest that Sony Semi considers it a worthwhile market.

(I do not know if it matters that Sony has an investment in Olympus)
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 01, 2019, 12:03:20 am
When Adobe went subscription LuLa was awash with business advice and predictions and the general consensus seemed to be that Adobe had made an awful mistake. It was predicted and even proved with tables and graphs that it was the worst decision ever. Several years later Adobe is making tons of money and is in great financial health.

I draw obvious conclusions from that event.

I also learnt that the collective noun for anecdote is not data.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Herbc on January 01, 2019, 03:34:30 pm
Not following you. Image and picture are synonyms in my world and can be used interchangeably in most cases. Do you mean a picture is a print? And an image is electronic? Are you then saying that a crop sensor doesn’t give enough quality to print?
What I meant was that electronic images are ephemeral whereas a print, aka picture must be tangible, physical or it is ephemeral.  No opinion on m/43 except that I had several, liked using them, just didn't see the size advantage as a real concern as I only shoot stationary stuff, so why have two systems?  If you don't print really big or crop like crazy, m43 will do great.  I have a bunch of 17x22's that are from m43 and they are not distinguishable from my A7RII shots.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Herbc on January 01, 2019, 03:35:48 pm
indeed-camera is least important thing. 8)
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 02, 2019, 02:02:14 am
What I meant was that electronic images are ephemeral whereas a print, aka picture must be tangible, physical or it is ephemeral.  No opinion on m/43 except that I had several, liked using them, just didn't see the size advantage as a real concern as I only shoot stationary stuff, so why have two systems?  If you don't print really big or crop like crazy, m43 will do great.  I have a bunch of 17x22's that are from m43 and they are not distinguishable from my A7RII shots.

OK. Thanks for explaining what you meant. Makes sense to me now.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: TonyVentourisPhotography on January 02, 2019, 09:16:10 am
What I meant was that electronic images are ephemeral whereas a print, aka picture must be tangible, physical or it is ephemeral.  No opinion on m/43 except that I had several, liked using them, just didn't see the size advantage as a real concern as I only shoot stationary stuff, so why have two systems?  If you don't print really big or crop like crazy, m43 will do great.  I have a bunch of 17x22's that are from m43 and they are not distinguishable from my A7RII shots.

Yeah that's my problem too!  All my prints and my client's publishings, catalogs, and prints look fantastic.  I just can't find anything that leaves me wanting more.  Ive shot full frame and medium format digital for years...and now more and more they sit on the shelf. 100% on screen might be more satisfying when you play with 100mp and can dive in and explore details you would never see...but at the end of the day m43 gets the job done very well in package that can be easily carried without sacrifice in features or quality.  And clients praise the work.  I've printed 30" from ISO 6400 before and the shot looks great.  A client of mine had a cropped image printed to almost 40" and hung in a very prominent location.  Looks amazing.  No one would ever think twice.  I couldn't believe it worked so well. 
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: RogTallbloke on January 07, 2019, 09:35:47 am
The thing I don't understand about camera manufacturers right now is that they put out quite good small cameras, like the RX100 and its rivals, for which there still seems to be a steady market, but when they get to ILCs, they want to go big.

I think the 1" sensor at 20MP can satisfy a lot of needs. Dynamic range is an issue, but with HDR modes and exposure bracketing, that limitation can be overcome to a large extent. Nikon so nearly got it right with the 1 system, but were hobbled by the noisy Aptina sensor, and mechanical problems with the lens designs have finally killed it.

As a backpacker who tries to keep the kit as light as possible, but wants a broad range of focal lengths for documenting trips, I bought into it because I rarely print, and when I do, I'm not so critical about grain as some. Before that, I tried the Pentax Q system, but Nikon's metering, AF speed and high burst frame rate are much better. And I love having an 810mm equivalence in a 70-300 zoom weighing 450g. The F1.8 50mm equivalent lens works reasonably well on the SONY sensored J5 body in low light after a bit of post-pro on RAW images too.

When my lenses eventually die with aperture diaphragm failure, I'll have to either accept more weight and bulk with a m4/3 system, or accept lower IQ and versatility with a 1" compact zoom. Or hang back and hope 1" sensor development improvements convince one of the other manufacturers to step into the market gap left by the demise of the Nikon 1 System and offer an ILC using it. Given that SONY are the leading 1" sensor manufacturer, and have a versatile range of focal lengths and maximum apertures on their existing fixed lens models, I guess they would be the most likely to exploit the (admittedly niche) market gap left by Nikon.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: armand on January 08, 2019, 11:26:21 am
For a backpacker who is very conscientious about weight but still wants quality I think it’s very tough to beat the newest Sony RX100 VI with a 24-200 equiv zoom. I used an E-M5ii with the 12-100 (same equiv zoom) and that range covers 90% of the landscaping needs. You miss mostly some wide and occasionally longer for wildlife. You usually don’t need larger apertures. Tricky lightning and ease of getting nice colors out of it are where work needs to be done.
For the most weight oriented ones a newer cellphone will do.

A new E-M1 iii with some of the alleged technological advances from the rumored E-M1x trickled in, such as handheld high resolution and better stabilization, along with the 12-100 F4 might be the holly grail of backpacking with a good enough quality combo that can take a beating from adverse weather.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: RogTallbloke on January 08, 2019, 03:22:27 pm
I had the RX100 MkII, but although it could produce good quality images, I never managed to connect with it well as a photographic tool. Probably a failure on my part to spend the time required learning how to get the best from it. But I was impressed by the sensor output for it's small size, and it was 'good enough' for my purposes, if a little dark at the far end of the zoom and a bit bland for my personal taste.

The latest offerings are always the greatest, but I'll have to wait a few years for those. I get vertigo and a nose bleed hurtling down the steep part of  the depreciation curve if I buy in too early. :)

I'll stick with the N1 for now. I love the 6.7-13 wide zoom and the 30-110 is superb for its tiny size and weight. Great macro with a couple of short tubes too.

I just got the Nikon lens adaptor, so I can lengthen the life of the system with some second user AF-S and AF-P glassware if need be. More weight...
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: donbga on January 08, 2019, 03:34:52 pm
I'm thinking that the "yield" would be a bunch of m4/3 lenses that sorely lack the resolution needed to make said sensor anything more than a novelty.  ;)

What? Failing to understand the sarcasm ...
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: RichDesmond on January 08, 2019, 05:38:21 pm
What? Failing to understand the sarcasm ...
Not really sarcasm, just light humor. (I had hoped. :) ) I referenced a post that postulated a ~200mp m4/3 sensor, my thought was that such a sensor would out-resolve many (all??) m4/3 lenses, and therefore be more a novelty than a serious product.

The post I was responding to meant "yield" in a different way.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Dan Wells on January 08, 2019, 11:40:12 pm
I agree completely with Armand that Olympus needs to roll as much of the E-M1x technology as possible into the E-M1 mkIII (and the E-M5 mkIII)...
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Keith on January 24, 2019, 08:53:57 pm
John, I had to look twice at your original post to make sure it wasn't something I posted in my sleep. My sentiments exactly. I went digital  around 2009 with an aps-c Nikon. After they semi abandoned the DX mount in regards to serious lenses and the delay of the D400 that finally became a D500, I looked to other options. I liked the Olympus system primarily due to the IBIS and the reputation of the Zuiko lenses, but also the overall size and cost. Although the Pro lenses are a bit larger and still expensive, it's quite a bit less than full frame, and there was no real aps-c options at the time. I started with an EPL-5 with 14-42 and 40-150 f4-5.6. It was great for travel due to the size, and I was surprised by the quality of a few 24" prints made from this camera. A number of respected individuals at the time extolled the quality of the system for up to 17x22" prints. I recall an article on TOP by Ctein regarding the 16mp sensor as equal to or better than the best 6x7 medium format film options, which is where I was in the film days. So I added an EM1.1 with 12-40 f2.8, a year later the 40-150 f2.8, another year the EM1.2, then a couple primes. I would like to add the Panasonic 8-18, and a few more primes, but I do wonder about the future of the mount as it stands today. I've printed to 20x30" with the EM1.1 and have been happy with the result. Haven't yet printed anything larger with the EM1.2, but hope to try a 36" or 40" print. I've read a few well qualified sources that feels the best of the Olympus lenses, both prime and zoom, may be up to par for around 28-32mp, but diffraction has got to come into play somewhere. One of the benefits of a 4/3 sensor is increased depth of field, so being limited to 5.6 or larger negates that, unless you invoke focus stacking. I'm mostly happy with what the current system offers in regards to bodies and lenses. I am disappointed that Nikon never filled out the DX line, as that seems to be a good balance in regards to sensor size and performance, with what should be an appropriate reduction in size and cost of the bodies and lenses. I have occasion where a FF sensor would be of benefit, and may very well add something like a Z7 and a couple of specific use lenses in the future. Regarding sensor technology, I think we've about reached the limit of existing sensors, maybe something like a Foveon hybrid significantly advances what can be done with all sensors in the future. In terms of market share, Canon, Nikon, and Sony are already such established names, it is difficult for Olympus to gain any ground, though I'm not sure they really tried hard enough with marketing and pushing the system beyond people already at the enthusiast level. Most newcomers know the Canon and Nikon name, and end up with one of those to make an occasional 8x10, not realizing what could be done with m43. I get the occasional funny look when someone looks at one of my 15" or 22" prints then tries to figure out how it came from anything other than a Canon or Nikon.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Lightsmith on March 24, 2019, 05:42:12 pm
What is commonly overlooked is size of the print actually needed with normal viewing distances. The larger the print the greater the viewing distance and so to make a print twice as big it does not require twice as many pixels in the file. For example large posters look fine at 140dpi and billboards are done at 110dpi.

The smaller the sensor the smaller the photosites and the poorer the light sensitivity and the greater the amount of signal amplification that is needed and the more visible noise in the resulting image files. Olympus wisely has stayed at 20MP for their MFT cameras in much the same way as Canon with its pro P&S G1 X and its 12.8MP sensor.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on March 24, 2019, 05:56:01 pm
I wouldn't object to m43 sensors using BSI tech to improve efficiency & low-light performance, but I agree that 20mp is plenty.

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: faberryman on March 24, 2019, 06:51:50 pm
Olympus wisely has stayed at 20MP for their MFT cameras in much the same way as Canon with its pro P&S G1 X and its 12.8MP sensor.
What is a "pro P&S." Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on March 24, 2019, 07:12:53 pm
What is commonly overlooked is size of the print actually needed with normal viewing distances. The larger the print the greater the viewing distance and so to make a print twice as big it does not require twice as many pixels in the file. For example large posters look fine at 140dpi and billboards are done at 110dpi.


I don't buy this logic. I've seen way too many people in galleries come right up to a large print to see the "picture within the picture". Things like the details of the grasses in the fields or the structure in the rocks on the mountain peaks. Sure people stand back to view the entire scene...but unless there is some form of barrier, many will come right up to the print...especially if it has detail.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: armand on March 24, 2019, 07:19:35 pm
What is a "pro P&S." Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Leica Q2  :P
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: scooby70 on March 25, 2019, 06:48:11 am
What is commonly overlooked is size of the print actually needed with normal viewing distances. The larger the print the greater the viewing distance and so to make a print twice as big it does not require twice as many pixels in the file. For example large posters look fine at 140dpi and billboards are done at 110dpi.

The smaller the sensor the smaller the photosites and the poorer the light sensitivity and the greater the amount of signal amplification that is needed and the more visible noise in the resulting image files. Olympus wisely has stayed at 20MP for their MFT cameras in much the same way as Canon with its pro P&S G1 X and its 12.8MP sensor.

I have 16 and 20mp MFT cameras and to be honest I see no difference between them which I assume makes the 20mp camera the better one as you're getting more mp for seemingly no hit to image quality. I don't know what difference the extra 4mp makes to the extremely fussy pixel peeper for all practical purposes for me 16 or 20mp is really a non issue.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on March 25, 2019, 04:20:12 pm
I don't buy this logic. I've seen way too many people in galleries come right up to a large print to see the "picture within the picture". Things like the details of the grasses in the fields or the structure in the rocks on the mountain peaks. Sure people stand back to view the entire scene...but unless there is some form of barrier, many will come right up to the print...especially if it has detail.

IMO this matters if you intend for people to look at a large print up close. But otherwise not.

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on March 25, 2019, 07:19:05 pm
IMO this matters if you intend for people to look at a large print up close. But otherwise not.

-Dave-

When I sell a print, I have no idea where it will be hung...so I try err on the side of people are able to view up close.

My own prints hanging in my house have varying abilities to view up close. Some are restricted by furniture, but others are on walls where people can view up close and most do.

This notion of "proper viewing distance" just does not exist in the real world. Just go into any gallery and observe people viewing the prints.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: JaapD on March 26, 2019, 03:28:49 am
Over the years we have seen a continuous improvements of image quality w.r.t sensor size. This means that smaller sensors, including micro 4/3, have become more and more useful.

I see roughly three playing fields:
1.   Good is good enough. I see this mainly with the Micro 4/3 and APSC formats. Keywords are portability, limited printing size, huge telelens opportunities.
2.   Good is never good enough. I see the medium format shine here, driven by the Fuji GFX family. Keywords are maximum pixel quantity.
3.   The in-between section of 35mm sensors. Here price vs performance is what counts.

The end is not in sight (new sensor developments ….) and I see a flourishing future for the smaller format cameras.


Regards,
Jaap.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: scooby70 on March 26, 2019, 03:39:19 am
When I sell a print, I have no idea where it will be hung...so I try err on the side of people are able to view up close.

My own prints hanging in my house have varying abilities to view up close. Some are restricted by furniture, but others are on walls where people can view up close and most do.

This notion of "proper viewing distance" just does not exist in the real world. Just go into any gallery and observe people viewing the prints.

I certainly take pictures intending to get a certain look and that look will only really be achievable at a certain viewing distance.

Maybe I'm the only one...
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: mecrox on March 26, 2019, 06:49:33 am
I certainly take pictures intending to get a certain look and that look will only really be achievable at a certain viewing distance.

Maybe I'm the only one...


When I went to a large photography expo a couple of months ago, I was surprised by the number of people doing a drive-by viewing of the images. They would walk past a few feet away and snap the image with their smartphone, move on and repeat with another one. I suspect the number of pixel-peeping types is very small these days. Far more folks don't appear to think something really exists until it is inside their phone and on Insta. Image quality is an irrelevance for these folks.


My interest is engagement, usually emotional. If the images engages me, it works. And if not, try another image. Everyone has their own individual viewing distance. And normally, for a reasonably sized print, it will be a few feet away. I'm sure that applies to the overwhelming majority of viewers. If the images turns out to be complete pants close up, well OK things are getting iffy. But how common is that? Again, I would guess another rarity. Besides, image resizing programs can give pretty good results these days if an enlargement is getting beyond say Photoshop's comfort zone.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on March 26, 2019, 09:12:07 am
I certainly take pictures intending to get a certain look and that look will only really be achievable at a certain viewing distance.

Maybe I'm the only one...

Depends on what the subject of your photos is. I take both documentary travel photos and landscape and yes with documentary photos, viewing the entire photo all at once gives you the most impact and these types of photos are rarely viewed up close.

However detailed landscape photos are a different story where the fine details of individual trees or rocks etc... In the photo provide a different view than the entire photo. I once visited a Mangelson gallery and there was this beautiful fall image of a meadow. If one looked from far away...the print was huge, one might have missed the bear laying down in the field. However coming in close and viewing the details within the print revealed a totally different feeling, allowing to see this bear as he lay resting in the sunny medow.

Bottom line some images are better viewed as a whole, others reveal a different perspective when viewing the details.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: LesPalenik on March 26, 2019, 09:32:45 pm
However detailed landscape photos are a different story where the fine details of individual trees or rocks etc... In the photo provide a different view than the entire photo. I once visited a Mangelson gallery and there was this beautiful fall image of a meadow. If one looked from far away...the print was huge, one might have missed the bear laying down in the field. However coming in close and viewing the details within the print revealed a totally different feeling, allowing to see this bear as he lay resting in the sunny medow.

Bottom line some images are better viewed as a whole, others reveal a different perspective when viewing the details.

This is true especially when it comes to large detailed panoramas. In contrast to a well composed subject in a conventional format, where you can see everything with one glance, a large panoramic image can tell a complete story with different details in each part of the image.

(https://www.thewadsworth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1850.9_header_history_web.jpg)
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Kirk_C on March 26, 2019, 11:05:33 pm
What is a "pro P&S." Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Oh but it's not.

Photojournalists, particularly in war zones and in countries that suppress news media make extensive use of "Pocket-able and sharp" cameras. They can be used much more covertly, produce images of outstanding quality for print and web use and are easily passed off as a 'tourist camera' at customs or a check point. And if you need to pull the card and toss the camera (to stay alive) an SD or micro SD card can be easily hidden when you're searched.


Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: John Camp on March 27, 2019, 11:31:13 am
I once wrote a lengthy article for The Online Photographer about image size, which is implicitly also about viewing distance. I compared photographs to paintings. Photography, in the past, has been much constrained by processing limitations. Very large high-resolution images were possible, but quite difficult, and beyond the capabilities of even some famous photographers. That's changed with the digital revolution.

Here's the thing about paintings from the Renaissance onward, and before that, on-the-wall forms like fresco and mosaic: the painter (affluent ones, anyway) were free to choose the size in a way that photographers were not. Larger sizes only involved a bit of extra canvas or board and paint. In the TOP article, I actually went through a large art history survey and averaged out the sizes...I can't remember the details, because this was years ago, but if I remember correctly, the average size for wall-display paintings (and which would generally be famous paintings, since they were in an art history book) was three feet or so. Some paintings, originally intended for museums or palaces, were much larger; but those intended for private homes most often fell into the three-foot range. They were intended to be hung on walls, behind chairs and couches, and they needed to be large enough to be easily seen, but small enough not to be overwhelming in living-room spaces. (See Vermeer.) Because paintings and photographs for home display generally share some viewing characteristics, I think looking at paintings can be a guide for photographers interested in exactly how large their prints should be, if they wish to sell them. I have a dozen or so art photographs in my home, and the small ones are in a (reasonably wide) hallway and arranged like a gallery. You can stand far enough back to get the impact, and if you really want to pixel-peep, you can put your nose against them. Two other larger one, a flower shot by Mapplethorpe and Adams' Moonrise, are in larger rooms and isolated; you can't approach the Mapplethorpe because it's over a stairwell, but for that kind of shot, a six-foot viewing distance restriction is fine -- details aren't too important. For the Moonrise, you need to do both. The Moonrise is, I think, 16x20, and is about as small as I'd want to put in that viewing situation. Any smaller, and it would have to go on the hallway gallery to be well-displayed. I would suggest that people who want to sell their photos for any substantial price must choose the photos carefully, and then consider making them *at least* 24 inches in the longer dimension. For most modern in-home display purposes, with appropriate matting and frame, that would appear to be a substantial piece of art to the viewer, comparable to paintings.

I'd make the point that I'm not arguing that one art form is superior to another, but simply that viewing context (home vs. museum) is important. I think that old style 8x10 or 11x14 B&W prints take very carefully considered viewing spaces...or none at all, and should be placed in a portfolio for occasional viewing. As for Hogloff's argument that some pictures need both long views and close-up viewing, I think he is correct, but only for a certain kind of style. Even with landscapes, there are some that don't need or benefit from close inspection. But, he's correct, others do. The Hudson River-style painting posted by LesPalenik above is one that benefits from providing both, as do older paintings by artists like the first two Breugels...but that is an old and now somewhat unfashionable way of doing things. Maybe its coming back, and maybe not.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Robert Roaldi on March 27, 2019, 12:17:07 pm
I read these discussions because I use m4/3s, but all the opinions expressed seem a bit odd to me. I read some of the postings from people who feel a need for high enough "resolution" to permit close viewing of large prints. Others need less than that. Others seem to be taking exhibition-quality work on smartphones. It's almost never mentioned that some work need not require high resolution to look good. Also, as an aside, I can't help but feel that the number of people to whom large prints is important might round to zero.

Anyway, none of the above uses excludes any of the others. Why do we seem to need to take sides based on sensor size? Presumably this topic has emerged because of the recent release of several "full size" mirrorless systems. Why should they affect m4/3s anymore than previous "full size" D-SLRs did (or did not)? It seems to me to be more likely the case that one or more of the "full size" manufacturers will topple because of all the competition within their sensor class.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: John Camp on March 27, 2019, 03:28:44 pm
I read these discussions because I use m4/3s, but all the opinions expressed seem a bit odd to me. I read some of the postings from people who feel a need for high enough "resolution" to permit close viewing of large prints. Others need less than that. Others seem to be taking exhibition-quality work on smartphones. It's almost never mentioned that some work need not require high resolution to look good. Also, as an aside, I can't help but feel that the number of people to whom large prints is important might round to zero.

Anyway, none of the above uses excludes any of the others. Why do we seem to need to take sides based on sensor size? Presumably this topic has emerged because of the recent release of several "full size" mirrorless systems. Why should they affect m4/3s anymore than previous "full size" D-SLRs did (or did not)? It seems to me to be more likely the case that one or more of the "full size" manufacturers will topple because of all the competition within their sensor class.

I agree in part and disagree in part. Some of the question comes down to replicating visual experience. That is, in a journalistic situation of tumult and action, cell phone cameras might be as appropriate, even when printed large, as FF DSLRs. When you're looking at photos of a riot, say, high res photos give almost the impression of a play; they feel set up, or frozen in place, a tableau. Cell phone photos, printed large, are fuzzy and even blurred, which gives the emotional impact of motion, haste, fear, hurry. A black and white option can give yet another feel, of street, of gloom, rain. So you pick your weapon.

I don't think we take sides because of sensor size, EXCEPT when it involves our particular enthusiasm. LL started out as a fairly pure landscape forum, and landscape guys like detail and the ability to crop, so they tend to like medium format or FF and so that's what you see on this forum. They want all the information they can get, figuring they can get rid of it if they don't need it. Guys who shoot motorcycle racing need super fast focus and so may give up pixels in favor of focus speed, but still want FF because those tend to be the most "pro" cameras with the biggest batteries, etc. And so on. I grew up photographically doing journalism, and that's what I still like the best. I shoot m4/3 partly because I like the aspect ratio, and partly because I mostly shoot street or sort-of street, natural light shots, where the highest resolution isn't necessary. I once shot a series on drug dealers in LA, and I *really* didn't want to be carrying my D800 and a Nikon 70-200 while doing that. The small m4/3 bodies were perfect, and the lack of ultimate resolution wasn't any kind of handicap. So, if we argue here about sensor sizes, I think that's because of our personal backgrounds and needs, which often aren't even mentioned. And the bias here, being a landscape-heavy forum, is toward high-res machines.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on March 27, 2019, 03:31:23 pm
This notion of "proper viewing distance" just does not exist in the real world. Just go into any gallery and observe people viewing the prints.

As I've mentioned before, I deal with this by keeping print sizes down to the point where "getting closer" doesn't reveal anything I don't want seen. Keep in mind I'm mostly not photographing landscapes with deep DOF, don't place prints in galleries and have no intention of ever doing so.

I have noticed recently, with 4K monitor/TV photo display, a tendency for some folks to put noses on glass. The part about this that most amuses me: there is detail in a 7–8mp downsampled file that can only be seen way up close on a ~50" 4K screen.

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: faberryman on March 27, 2019, 07:33:56 pm
LL started out as a fairly pure landscape forum, and landscape guys like detail and the ability to crop, so they tend to like medium format or FF and so that's what you see on this forum. They want all the information they can get, figuring they can get rid of it if they don't need it.
I am a landscape photographer and rarely crop. If you find yourself cropping routinely, either you are using the wrong lens or you need to spend more time framing.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: hogloff on March 27, 2019, 08:21:47 pm
I am a landscape photographer and rarely crop. If you find yourself cropping routinely, either you are using the wrong lens or you need to spend more time framing.

Same here...very rare do I crop a landscape print. The beauty about landscapes is you usually have plenty of time to change the lens to the focal length you need, thus limiting the need to crop.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Telecaster on March 28, 2019, 05:03:43 pm
"Ability to crop" ≠ routine cropping.

-Dave-
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: HSakols on April 01, 2019, 08:57:53 am
I crop most of my u4/3 images to 8:10.  What's the problem????
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: JaapD on April 02, 2019, 01:36:06 am
I crop most of my u4/3 images to 8:10.  What's the problem????

I don't see the problem either. Much better starting position than cropping from 2:3 format. Cropping to a certain required aspect ratio seems a valid reason to me.

Regards,
Jaap.
Title: Re: m4/3 sensor future
Post by: Rob C on April 02, 2019, 09:57:48 am
I'd agree with Hogloff - use it (the E-M series are great street cameras), but I'd be careful about big new purchases - wait to see how Panasonic plays out (do they go all FF, or keep up both lines), and does Olympus keep releasing cool quick, compact bodies?

In almost no case does it make sense to get rid of a camera you still like and use - its value as a tool generally exceeds its market value...

Too true!

That's why I still keep my D200.

Rob
Title: m4/3 sensor future — Panasonic is not leaving 4/3" format
Post by: BJL on April 02, 2019, 08:06:24 pm
...  wait to see how Panasonic plays out (do they go all FF, or keep up both lines) ...
I think we can put that one to bed now: it is very clear that Panasonic is adding a second, larger format product line that offers very different trade-offs of performance, cost, and size for different use cases and different budgets—just as Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Fujifilm and even Leica are doing. The main evidence is in the high pricing of Panasonic's L-mount bodies and lenses, along with the far smaller size (revenues and unit sales) of the 36x24mm format compared to the smaller mainstream ILC formats and some (old-fashioned and naive?) degree of trust in Panasonic's repeated statements to that effect.