Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: PSA DC-9-30 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
... 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If used in RAW mode how would this be different for the end user from the E-510? Other than having an a viewfinder that lags the action?
-
If used in RAW mode how would this be different for the end user from the E-510? Other than having an a viewfinder that lags the action?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lag can be fixed--and the keyword in my statement is "WYSIWYG". Also: no mirror-slap = SILENCE.
-
Ah. A quiet shutter is the requested feature. That would be nice. The E-3's AF would be nice in a weenier bodied camera, too.
-
Not to mention that they could make the evf as large as they wish, and high-resolution, too, which could actually be an improvement over the tiny ovfs of their consumer models (never really bothered me, but a common complaint).
However, I think they would need a mirror assembly for the af setup, unless they want to do it p+s style? However... since there's no need to send light to the prism, more light could be diverted to the AF sensors, resulting in greater low-light sensitivity and precision.
-
I can't imagine why Oly should care about the pixel wars, when the 1D Mk.III has exactly the same res. As previously mentioned, to those of us who know what megapixels are, 10 is plenty. That will stand for exactly the same reason why 35mm film stood for so long: it fits the standard magazine format to the end of human perception. There is a huge matter at play here that doesn't get enough coverage. The higher res. sensors are going beyond the ability of lens technology to carry that higher res. On this very site, M. Reichmann falls out of love on the 1Ds Mk.II with the 100~400L, because aberrations become apparent @ 16 Mp.
Where Oly does need to concentrate is on improving things like DR, buffer size, cont. frame rate and so forth, but they are fine right now, at the price point. If I was a new E-3 owner, (not my brand) I'd be satisfied and confident that my camera will be competent for a long while to come.
-
It'd be nice if everyone realized that 10mp is quite adequate as you do, but the reason Olympus has to care to some degree is marketing. Olympus is already very far behind in marketing, and if all their competitors are marketing 14mp cameras and they only have 10mp, they will run into some problems.
-
No, no, no! These incremental jumps from 6 to 8, from 8 to 10, from 10 to 12mp are trivial. Added together, however, they mean something. The difference between 6mp and 12mp is definite.
The next FF DSLRs are going to be 24mp. That's a significant jump from say 12mp and it's an area where Olympus will fear to tread.
-
Well, personally, I use Olympus, the 7.5 mp E-330, and I don't want to upgrade untill I can get a nice 4000x3000 12mp image... otherwise I see little reason to upgrade.
-
The difference between 6mp and 12mp is definite.
The next FF DSLRs are going to be 24mp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But each successive doubling of pixel count is less important, or important to a smaller range of of photographic and print-making situations.
- From 1MP to 2MP made even snapshot sized prints noticeably better, and so was of value to anyone who printed at all, or had a high enough resolution monitor.
- From 5MP to 10MP shows up only with far larger prints and not on any current monitors. Starting at about 8"x10" or above, and then only with fairly close viewing and some types of subject matter.
- From 10MP to 20MP might only be relevant with the rather extreme combinations of:
-- prints viewed from unusually close; far closer than the typical viewing distance of roughly the maximum dimension of the print, and
-- sharp, high quality lenses: only fairly good primes and the best of zooms.
Because with most lenses, the extra pixels will mostly add greater awareness of lens aberrations and not much more image detail (like 14 bit A/D convertors mostly revealing finer details about the sensor noise, unless the sensor has very good DR.)
And with the near inevitable move of all DSLR systems to offering 14MP and above over the next year or two, the visible gap between 14MP and and higher pixel will become even more rarely seen in prints. Near inevitable because of the empirical
Law of the Pixel Count Race: Every new high of pixel count in digicams is soon matched or exceeded by every DSLR system.
(Even if this is at some point driven mostly by marketing considerations.)
And Sony just announced a digicam with 14MP, 1/1.7" format sensor.
-
But each successive doubling of pixel count is less important, or important to a smaller range of of photographic and print-making situations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Put simply, there's a law of diminishing returns that applies when sensor resolution is improved without simultaneously improving the lenses used. That's true and it is a concern. Every time Canon releases an upgrade with a higher pixel count, there are those who worry if the potential improvement in resolution will be realised.
However, having compared my 20D with my 5D using the Canon 100-400/5.6 IS zoom at 400mm from the same position, I can see greater detail and resolution in the 20D shot, to an extent which would cause me to choose a more expensive lens in preference to another cheaper lens if I saw such a difference during a comparison in a store whilst comparing lenses before buying.
Since the 20D has the same pixel density as the 1Ds3, and since the Canon 100-400 zoom is a medium quality lens in the general scheme of things, I have no doubt that a 24mp FF 35mm sensor would produce a worthwhile jump in resolution and detail compared with my 5D, with most good lenses, even if they weren't the best.
This is of course a dilemma for me. A 16mp upgrade to the 5D is likely to be too marginal for me, considering only the resolution factor. A subsequent upgrade again from 16mp to 24mp would also be too marginal. But an upgrade from 12mp to 24mp is likely to be irresistable. I have a wide format printer, you know!
-
... I can see greater detail and resolution in the 20D shot ...
Since the 20D has the same pixel density as the 1Ds3 ... I have no doubt that a 24mp FF 35mm sensor would produce a worthwhile jump in resolution and detail compared with my 5D, with most good lenses, even if they weren't the best.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed with respect to the central 40% of the 24x36mm frame that you are seeing in files from the 20D. I am not so sure about the remaining 60% around the edges when scrutinized in 24MP 24x36mm format files.
Still, I am sure that you are one of those who is willing and able to upgrade lenses as needed to get beyond the resolution limits that you are apparently suffering with the mere 12.7MP of the 5D!
The market for smaller formats like 4/3, EF-S and DX is not the market for "highest feasable resolution", but a different and historically always far larger SLR mainstream. In that sense, the short answer to the question that started this thread is "no, and none of 4/3, EF-S or DX puts a priority on trying match the pixel counts that larger formats like 24x36mm offer". (Though with the D200 etc. and then the D300 etc., Nikon and Sony were happy to come close to the slightly low-ball choice of 12.7MP in the 5D, probably taking many sales that would otherwise have been split between the 5D and 20D/30D.)
-
- From 5MP to 10MP shows up only with far larger prints and not on any current monitors.
Well, that's not entirely accurate (http://radiforce.com/en/products/mono-gs520-mpim.html).
The monitor in the link has a resolution of 2048x2560, and it's a monochrome display. Given the resolution loss from monochrome conversion of Bayer pattern sensors, it can display more resolution than what you can get from a 5 MP or 6 MP camera.
If you look around, you can get a used 9 MP (3840x2400, WQUXGA) colour display, under the IBM, Iiyama, ViewSonic, ADTX or IDTech brands. None of these displays are currently manufactured, though.
Toshiba will, (http://www.toshiba-sol.co.jp/news/detail/071101-2.htm) apparently, begin production of a WQUXGA display this spring, so the format ain't dead yet.
And even if you can't view an image in full size on 16:10 or 4:3 displays, there is always that infernal cropping of images to suit the subject. Darnit.
Nitpicking aside, I don't think people will view images up close and personal on a computer screen today, but I don't think we should pretend that they won't in the future.
IF the subject matter survives having a high resolution image, I don't see any particular technical reason why one shouldn't desire to take advantage of that. Who knows if your pictures might not sell in 2020 as well as in 1995.