Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: teddillard on November 05, 2009, 09:51:41 am
-
"Olympus Introduces New PEN E-P2"
http://bit.ly/3uWGdY (http://bit.ly/3uWGdY)
...can't wait to see the files on this baby! Not to mention the focus speed.
(http://www.h2hreviews.com/files/image/News/Oly%20NDA%20-%20Nov%205th/E-P2_OlyStock_275.jpg)
-
Wow, 5 months or so after the release of the EP-1!
Was this in answer to the cries of the market?
-
if the focus speed matches the GF-1, then i'll be ready to buy. black, high res finder, IS -- close enough. sure would be nice to replace the rear screen with a built-in EVF, but that's probably not going to happen
-
if the focus speed matches the GF-1, then i'll be ready to buy. black, high res finder, IS -- close enough. sure would be nice to replace the rear screen with a built-in EVF, but that's probably not going to happen
DP review's Simon Joinson notes ...
"Having used an E-P2 and spent half a day recently with the guys from Olympus Japan, I can assure you that the AF speed is the exactly the same as the E-P1."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=33603145 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33603145)
-
Wow, 5 months or so after the release of the EP-1!
Was this in answer to the cries of the market?
[Edit: about four months from the E-P1 announcement.]
My first guess is that the EVF panel from Epson was not ready in time, so rather than wait until 2010 to release its first m4/3 model, Olympus went with the E-P1.
But maybe the plan all along was to start with the basic model aimed at the many digicam switchers who are happy composing on the LCD and refer to avoid the extra cost and the larger size and/or smaller LCD (if EVF is built-in) that adding an EVF requires. My bet is that amongst the compact m4/3 models (E-P1, GF-1, E-P2), the great majority will be bought and used without an EVF.
So many online comments on Micro Four Thirds come from DSLR users thinking of it as competing with DSLR's or serving as a second smaller camera for DSLR users ... but us DSLR users are under 10% of the camera market, and it seems that the majority of buyers of the compact m4/3 models are coming from small sensor compact digicams instead, and have different priorities for size, VF type and such. I short, many are happy composing on the LCD, and use it only for framing and review, not for precise focus checking, and for such people, most complaints about LCDs and their resolution are irrelevant.
-
[quote name='BJL' date='Nov 5 2009, 09:24 AM' post='322825']
[Edit: about four months from the E-P1 announcement.]
My first guess is that the EVF panel from Epson was not ready in time, so rather than wait until 2010 to release its first m4/3 model, Olympus went with the E-P1.
But maybe the plan all along was to start with the basic model aimed at the many digicam switchers who are happy composing on the LCD and refer to avoid the extra cost and the larger size and/or smaller LCD (if EVF is built-in) that adding an EVF requires. My bet is that amongst the compact m4/3 models (E-P1, GF-1, E-P2), the great majority will be bought and used without an EVF.
It seems to me that, if Olympus was waiting for the EVF panel, they could have still included the data port for it in the EP-1, and just called the EVF "coming soon." I think you're second scenario is more likely.
-
It seems to me that, if Olympus was waiting for the EVF panel, they could have still included the data port for it in the EP-1
My impression was that they did include an accessory port with the EP2, but I'm confirming with the guy who met with OM right now.
update- yes, confirmed. The EP-2 has an accessory port on the back for both an electronic viewfinder and microphone.
This is from the OM site:
ADAPT AND ACCESSORIZE
The E-P2 includes a port for new accessories including EMA-1 Microphone adapter and the VF-2 live-finder, a detachable electronic viewfinder that comes with the E-P2. The viewfinder easily slides onto the camera's accessory port and hot shoe to provide 1.15x magnification for a 100% field of view. The VF-2 rotates up 90 degrees which is useful when shooting subjects from challenging angles. Its diopter can be adjusted to allow most photographers to see subjects in perfect focus without wearing glasses. The external accessory port also allows for connection with the new EMA-1 external microphone connector for enhanced audio capture.
-
DP review's Simon Joinson notes ...
"Having used an E-P2 and spent half a day recently with the guys from Olympus Japan, I can assure you that the AF speed is the exactly the same as the E-P1."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=33603145 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33603145)
Oh dear, Oly should have waited until they had all the major shortcomings sorted before releasing a new model imo.
-
It seems to me that, if Olympus was waiting for the EVF panel, they could have still included the data port for it in the EP-1, and just called the EVF "coming soon." I think you're second scenario is more likely.
I agree that Oly should have put the port on the EP-1.
Actually, they should be putting the port on all their DSLRs--possibly get rid of the swivel LCD!
-
Oh dear, Oly should have waited until they had all the major shortcomings sorted before releasing a new model imo.
Another voice from the perspective of "serious DSLR users", who are I suspect not at all the main target market for the E-Px cameras. (The G-1 and GH-1 are a bit more oriented to the DSLR crowd, maybe.) For those stepping up from a compact with a far smaller sensor and on which the LCD is the preferred composing tool, I doubt that AF speed comparisons, to SLR's in particular, are a major deciding factor. Evidence? Mainly reports of good sales.
P. S. I am reminded of the early days of the iPod, when it was often said in forums that the iPod would fail miserably, due to alternatives like the Rio player offering more storage capacity for a lower price, and options of higher quality audio. What was dismissed as unimportant was that the iPod was far smaller and lighter ...
-
P. S. I am reminded of the early days of the iPod, when it was often said in forums that the iPod would fail miserably, due to alternatives like the Rio player offering more storage capacity for a lower price, and options of higher quality audio. What was dismissed as unimportant was that the iPod was far smaller and lighter ...
It was the UI and Apple marketing which made iPod the killer gadget.
-
"Olympus Introduces New PEN E-P2"
http://bit.ly/3uWGdY (http://bit.ly/3uWGdY)
...can't wait to see the files on this baby! Not to mention the focus speed.
(http://www.h2hreviews.com/files/image/News/Oly%20NDA%20-%20Nov%205th/E-P2_OlyStock_275.jpg)
Must have missed something. Why would the files be much different then the EP-1? Sounds like it uses the same sensor ... is there that much magic they can do with the firmware?
-
Must have missed something. Why would the files be much different then the EP-1? Sounds like it uses the same sensor ... is there that much magic they can do with the firmware?
uh, I'd argue that it's more about the firmware than anything else... sensors are sensors... but like I always say, show me the files.
-
uh, I'd argue that it's more about the firmware than anything else... sensors are sensors... but like I always say, show me the files.
Really? Sensors are sensors? I find it hard to believe the improvements in image quality achieved by newer cameras is primarily due to firmware. Sure new firmware to take advantage of new sensor designs and capabilities, but just firmware? If firmware had this much of an impact, you would think firmware upgrades to improve IQ would be somewhat common place, yet the only time I've seen anything like this is to fix an issue.
I see nothing in any information anywhere that they have done anything to the EP-2 that would have an impact on RAW image quality. I've heard the EP-1 already performs very well, but you would think this would be worth mentioning in the press release. They've done some things that can affect in camera jpegs but that's all that is mentioned.
I guess we'll know soon enough. I'm sure someone will shoot some side by sides. Maybe the marketing and PR departments just don't think it's important enough to mention - I'll admit that is a possibility.
-
DPR calls this a very mild upgrade...Olympus pretty much added the viewfinder and a couple of "filters," and that was about it. Increased the price, of course. As Leica called their M8 upgrade the M8.2, this is sort of the E-P1.2. I wouldn't expect a real upgrade for a while, yet.
JC
-
Really? Sensors are sensors? I find it hard to believe the improvements in image quality achieved by newer cameras is primarily due to firmware.
Yes, and I know it's considered heresy in many corners, but after following sensor design for quite a few years there's very little that has actually changed. The biggest change has been noise and color work at the analog level before the A/D converter, at least as far as I'm aware. I'm not even sure how that ended up being utilized, my impression was that it was a big buzz in around 04, but failed pretty dramatically. There has been a lot of work over the years in filtration type and color, and there's some stuff in the works with an entirely new RGB filtration that I believe Kodak is working on, but the bottom line is it's a device that collects the RGB and luminance data and then depends on the firmware to process color and noise.
The developments in the last few years that I'm seeing are about working with smaller pixels and processing them for better noise and color control. There haven't been any big changes in the basic chip design, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm always slightly amused by the claims that a certain chip gives you a certain look- like, oh, that's a Kodak chip, that's what they do... I've seen files from many different sensors for about a decade now - well, virtually every pro-level sensor actually - and never been able to characterize a sensor's "look". The sensor ain't like film, in that respect. I have, however, seen some remarkable improvements in file quality from a sensor with a firmware change.
So anyway, that aside, and from another angle, Olympus has never seemed to consider ISO performance a serious priority, and my disappointment in the EP1 (http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Mini-Head-2-Head-Review-Olympus-E-P1-vs-Canon-Rebel-T1i-vs-Nikon-D5000.html) was essentially around that issue. I'd be really surprised if their response to market demand is addressing that, so, no, I don't really expect there's going to be much of an improvement... but it would be really sweet if they snuck a little FW upgrade into the thing for both the focus speed and the noise. I can dream...
Oh, as far as a side-by-side goes, yep, you can bet on it, and it'll be me!
-
Yes, and I know it's considered heresy in many corners, but after following sensor design for quite a few years there's very little that has actually changed. The biggest change has been noise and color work at the analog level before the A/D converter, at least as far as I'm aware.
I would tend to agree with your assessment that perhaps the biggest change has been noise.
I am skeptical the change in noise characteristics from a 20d to a 7d, or a 1Ds to a 1Ds Mark 4 (most likely coming soon) is mainly attributed to firmware. I doubt very much you could put a 20d sensor in a 7d body and get much more out of than the 20d.
I think advancements in chip design are the key element here. shrinking the on chip electronics so individual photosites are larger, improved electronics so noise is less, improved micro lenses to direct more light into each photosite, and better technology in chip manufacturing. This provides major improvements in S/N ratios before the A/D convertors, add to the far less noise contributed by the A/D electronics and a substantial improvement in usable raw data. I assume there is some "on chip" noise reduction, which I believe is part of chip design and not part of firmware.
If we are to believe the data is actually being delivered "RAW" when saved as such, then the camera firmware shouldn't be messing with it much.
Of course, with these advancements it also means you can make the photosites smaller and yet yield similar or even improved noise performance.
Bottom line, same chip ... same results. I've already seen a few early reports that IQ on the EP-2 is identical to the EP-1, as is the focusing characteristics.. I look forward to your assessment.
-
One part of the whole model upgrade equation is that most consumer electronics, which is what most of this stuff is after all, are single batch produced. Canon started this with the original Sureshot.
As the warehouse empties, there better be a new product waiting in the wings. If they underestimate the production volume or the item sells faster than anticipated, figure out what can be crammed into the current unit with the least amount of retooling.
Incremental model upgrades could also be a means of giving them wiggle room between major redesigns as new technology matures to the point of practical commercial application.
-
I would tend to agree with your assessment that perhaps the biggest change has been noise.
I am skeptical the change in noise characteristics from a 20d to a 7d, or a 1Ds to a 1Ds Mark 4 (most likely coming soon) is mainly attributed to firmware. I doubt very much you could put a 20d sensor in a 7d body and get much more out of than the 20d.
I think advancements in chip design are the key element here. shrinking the on chip electronics so individual photosites are larger, improved electronics so noise is less, improved micro lenses to direct more light into each photosite, and better technology in chip manufacturing. This provides major improvements in S/N ratios before the A/D convertors, add to the far less noise contributed by the A/D electronics and a substantial improvement in usable raw data. I assume there is some "on chip" noise reduction, which I believe is part of chip design and not part of firmware.
If we are to believe the data is actually being delivered "RAW" when saved as such, then the camera firmware shouldn't be messing with it much.
Of course, with these advancements it also means you can make the photosites smaller and yet yield similar or even improved noise performance.
Bottom line, same chip ... same results. I've already seen a few early reports that IQ on the EP-2 is identical to the EP-1, as is the focusing characteristics.. I look forward to your assessment.
Here you go- in a great explanation of the Digic processor, Canon does talk a bit about what is happening, and where. A snappy illustration of bit depth, too. Gonna have to bookmark this one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...;articleID=2748 (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2748)
What I take from this is that the sensor readout circuitry does contribute to the noise: "Several factors may affect the strength or purity of the analog signals reaching the A/D converter, such as electronic noise generated by the image sensor or its readout circuitry,..." so that certainly is a factor I guess. You have a sensor that makes less noise in readout, you get a better file. Still, I'd argue straightout image quality depends much more on the A/D processor, ie firmware, than the sensor, and that the look and feel of the file is in the firmware, not the chip.
...back to the EP2, yeah, I'm getting to the same point. Not much in the way of expectations.
-
Here you go- in a great explanation of the Digic processor, Canon does talk a bit about what is happening, and where. A snappy illustration of bit depth, too. Gonna have to bookmark this one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...;articleID=2748 (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2748)
What I take from this is that the sensor readout circuitry does contribute to the noise: "Several factors may affect the strength or purity of the analog signals reaching the A/D converter, such as electronic noise generated by the image sensor or its readout circuitry,..." so that certainly is a factor I guess. You have a sensor that makes less noise in readout, you get a better file. Still, I'd argue straightout image quality depends much more on the A/D processor, ie firmware, than the sensor, and that the look and feel of the file is in the firmware, not the chip.
...back to the EP2, yeah, I'm getting to the same point. Not much in the way of expectations.
If they haven't changed the sensor and they haven't changed the oly equivalent of the digic chip I doubt there is a whole lot you could do in firmware.
-
Here you go- in a great explanation of the Digic processor, Canon does talk a bit about what is happening, and where. A snappy illustration of bit depth, too. Gonna have to bookmark this one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...;articleID=2748 (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2748)
Considering that cmos sensors do the A/D conversion on the sensor at the pixel level, the ability of Digic4 to do anything will be quite dependent on chip design. sounds like this goes hand in hand... you have to improve the sensor at which point you can improve the firmware to take advantage of the new sensor.
Of course, the EF-1(2) and the GF1 don't use a cmos sensor, or a CCD for that matter. I don't know what "Live mos" brings to the table - it appears to be some hybrid mix of CCD and cmos technologies. It apparently improved the noise of the original 4/3rds sensors which were ccd based, but how that relates to chip design vs firmware ... maybe completely different than other cameras.
But I'm not engineer, and most of this getting over my pay grade.
I'm actually becoming a fan of the micro 4/3rds format, and I was wondering if the 4/3rds cameras lag behind in noise? To me it seems they could do better, but then again my own test seems to show they are only about a stop behind the recent Canon 7D, and about a stop better than the recent G11/s90. considering the size of the sensors perhaps that's not bad.
I really like the Lumix, but the in camera IS of the Pen is a nice feature.
-
Considering that cmos sensors do the A/D conversion on the sensor at the pixel level,
Sorry, where do you get that? I may be completely off-base here, but the CMOS just gives you a readout of each pixel, not A/D at the pixel... in any case, the processing is the real "secret sauce" here. As I mentioned, one sensor design had noise filtering and some limited color processing before the A/D conversion- working the analog data. There was a great deal of promise with that, but I believe it fell short in actual practice, and I haven't heard of anyone else doing it.
I totally agree with you on the format, Wayne, it's really exciting but has, so far, fallen short on image quality across the board. And DarkPenguin, the firmware is what is in the processor- what you're calling the chip. Upgrade the firmware, upgrade the processor... so you could keep the same processor and change the processing by reprogramming the "chip".
-
And DarkPenguin, the firmware is what is in the processor- what you're calling the chip. Upgrade the firmware, upgrade the processor... so you could keep the same processor and change the processing by reprogramming the "chip".
You could if that's how they designed it. I would be stunned if it was doing any significant image processing in firmware.
-
You could if that's how they designed it. I would be stunned if it was doing any significant image processing in firmware.
Uh, not sure where we're disconnecting, but take a look at that Canon link. That's exactly where they're doing all the processing. Every camera I've ever worked with does the image processing in the camera processor, the firmware.
-
Sorry, where do you get that? I may be completely off-base here, but the CMOS just gives you a readout of each pixel, not A/D at the pixel... in any case, the processing is the real "secret sauce" here. As I mentioned, one sensor design had noise filtering and some limited color processing before the A/D conversion- working the analog data. There was a great deal of promise with that, but I believe it fell short in actual practice, and I haven't heard of anyone else doing it.
I totally agree with you on the format, Wayne, it's really exciting but has, so far, fallen short on image quality across the board. And DarkPenguin, the firmware is what is in the processor- what you're calling the chip. Upgrade the firmware, upgrade the processor... so you could keep the same processor and change the processing by reprogramming the "chip".
I thought I'd heard this before, so I did a little research. Turns out CMOS does the electron to voltage conversion at the pixel level which I believe has been misinterpreted as the A/D conversion by some in various forums. This is one of the major difference between CMOS and CCD, and is one reason the actual light sensitive area of the CCD sensor is a greater % of the chip. (Surprisingly enough even on a CCD that light sensitive area is only 30% of the surface of the chip).
However, from everything I can find, the CMOS sensor does do much of the image processing in the chip itself, including the A/D conversion. The Camera firmware receives digital data from a CMOS sensor, not Analog data. Even the article you linked indicates this to be true ..."In the case of the EOS 5D Mark II and 50D cameras, the raw digital data produced by the A/D converter is fed directly to the DIGIC 4 image processing circuit". So the A/D conversion occurs before the camera firmware/processor sees it.
There is a couple of diagrams in this article by Dalsa which also shows the A/D convertor is part of the CMOS circuitry ... http://www.dalsa.com/public/corp/Photonics...S_Litwiller.pdf (http://www.dalsa.com/public/corp/Photonics_Spectra_CCDvsCMOS_Litwiller.pdf).
To me it appears CMOS IQ is very dependent on in chip circuitry.
One apparent advantage of LiveMOS sensors is they allow a CMOS type of sensor to obtain the same light sensitve surface as a CCD ... about 30% of each pixel. According this this source, a CMOS sensor is more in the neighborhood of 10% http://www.dcviews.com/press/Olympus-Panasonic-MOS.htm (http://www.dcviews.com/press/Olympus-Panasonic-MOS.htm). This also shows one of the purported advantages of Live MOS.
It's easy to see how even minor efforts to shrink the on chip electronics of CMOS sensors can lead to substantial gains in the light sensitive area of the sensor, yielding improved signal to noise ratios.
-
I thought I'd heard this before, so I did a little research. Turns out CMOS does the electron to voltage conversion at the pixel level which I believe has been misinterpreted as the A/D conversion by some in various forums. This is one of the major difference between CMOS and CCD, and is one reason the actual light sensitive area of the CCD sensor is a greater % of the chip. (Surprisingly enough even on a CCD that light sensitive area is only 30% of the surface of the chip).
However, from everything I can find, the CMOS sensor does do much of the image processing in the chip itself, including the A/D conversion. The Camera firmware receives digital data from a CMOS sensor, not Analog data. Even the article you linked indicates this to be true ..."In the case of the EOS 5D Mark II and 50D cameras, the raw digital data produced by the A/D converter is fed directly to the DIGIC 4 image processing circuit". So the A/D conversion occurs before the camera firmware/processor sees it.
There is a couple of diagrams in this article by Dalsa which also shows the A/D convertor is part of the CMOS circuitry ... http://www.dalsa.com/public/corp/Photonics...S_Litwiller.pdf (http://www.dalsa.com/public/corp/Photonics_Spectra_CCDvsCMOS_Litwiller.pdf).
To me it appears CMOS IQ is very dependent on in chip circuitry.
One apparent advantage of LiveMOS sensors is they allow a CMOS type of sensor to obtain the same light sensitve surface as a CCD ... about 30% of each pixel. According this this source, a CMOS sensor is more in the neighborhood of 10% http://www.dcviews.com/press/Olympus-Panasonic-MOS.htm (http://www.dcviews.com/press/Olympus-Panasonic-MOS.htm). This also shows one of the purported advantages of Live MOS.
It's easy to see how even minor efforts to shrink the on chip electronics of CMOS sensors can lead to substantial gains in the light sensitive area of the sensor, yielding improved signal to noise ratios.
Heading out the door, but thanks for that great info! Yes, CMOS images are very dependent on the sensor circuitry. They are inherently noisier, so anything that can keep the S/N ratio better is key. The biggest contributor to noise, actually, is called "signal leakage" on a CMOS, and the best fix for that is to use a higher grade of silicon apparently. This, ironically, raises the cost of the CMOS up to nearly the level of a CCD, from what I've been told.
More later, got honey-doo stuff to take care of!
-
Absolutely fascinating bunch of information, Wayne... thanks again. There's a whole lot more to take in than I've had a chance to, but that .pdf from Dalsa is, in the very least, one of the best explanations of how the sensor works as anything I've read or been told.
All that said and read, though. Let me go back to the original statement, sensors is sensors... I think what we're discussing here are generational differences in sensor technology, not a simple difference in brand or product. There certainly is a huge difference in sensors between what we're seeing now, and what was there only a few years ago, whether you're talking CMOS or CCD, and I'd never mean to say that there's no significance between the quality of the files from one generation to another. My only point is that in the comparison of two models of similar-priced cameras, or even, in most cases (and this one in particular, apparently) where you have a newer model of a camera released, the sensor model doesn't have much to do with the image quality. The firmware upgrades, or processor (chip) updates are far more important.
Sensor technology breakthroughs aside, sensors, themselves, are not analogous to film- they do not have a characteristic look. That is a result of the processor. They certainly have performance characteristics- noise, bit-depth (if the A/D is on the sensor), filtration capabilities, but those are what the processor is going to use to make that look.
I feel like I'm mincing words, and I also feel like we're in agreement. I only try to clarify this because I've read so many times how the expectation from a certain sensor is that it will perform in a certain way, and it just doesn't work like that. ("Oh, that's a Sony sensor... we know that's going to do such and such...")
Bottom line- take two cameras that are similar products and the image quality you see from the files are about the tradeoffs that get made in the processor. Show me the files.
-
I thought I'd heard this before, so I did a little research. Turns out CMOS does the electron to voltage conversion at the pixel level which I believe has been misinterpreted as the A/D conversion by some in various forums.
To clarify: Panasonic's MOS-based 4/3 sensors are in most respects the same as CMOS sensors, in being active pixel devices: the charge from each photosite is amplified to a larger charge in the process of transferring it to the edge of the sensor. In at least some active pixel (CMOS/MOS) sensors, this amplification is variable, so ISO adjustment is done there. And I believe that charge to voltage conversion is also done on-chip. Canon and Panasonic sensors then output this voltage signal (though maybe the GH-1 sensor is different, outputting a digitized signal.) Canon DSLR's do A/D conversion off-chip, but before reaching the DIGIC chip, which is purely DSP as far as I know. But Sony EXMOR CMOS sensors to A/D conversion on-chip at the bottom of each column and output a digital signal (so ISO amplification and charge to voltage amplification is clearly done on-chip too).
What about CCD's? Dalsa at least incorporates charge to voltage conversion and amplification onto its FF CCD sensor modules, but this is with separate amplifiers mounted next to the corners of the sensor on the same package. Kodak might too, but I am not sure. CCD chips themselves are passive devices, only transporting charges, with no amplification or charge to voltage conversion.
One final note: the amplification stages, including charge to voltage conversion, are a major noise source, and refinements in that stage are often cited by makers of both CCD and active pixel (CMOS, MOS) sensors as contributing to lower noise levels. This can be improved incrementally in what is superficially the same design. For example the 10MP "High Speed LiveMOS" sensor of the Olympus E-3 was improved in this respect over the 10MP sensor in the E-410 and E-510 from earlier the same year, through wiring and amplification refinements.
Thus it is possible to reduce the noise levels of a new camera using the same or a superficially very similar sensor, through amplification refinements. Olympus and Panasonic have indicated that the next sensor improvements might well not involve increases in pixel counts, but improvements in other dimensions of performance.
-
OK, sorry for the delay, I've just been off in the corner eating a little crow... (pass the salt, please? )
Seriously, this was really a lot of great info to digest- especially the last post. It got me going on putting together a quick flow-chart (kinda) on what happens where... which I posted on the h2h site (http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/Sensors-is-sensors---what-exactly-happens-where--and-what-does-it-all-mean-.html). Have a look, and let me know if I've missed anything. I still have my crow-eating bib on. Of course, I haven't changed my mind at all, but you know... that's just how I am.
Thanks again guys...
-
Panasonic's MOS-based 4/3 sensors are in most respects the same as CMOS sensors, in being active pixel devices
I have an update on this: Panasonic's LiveMOS sensors are active pixel CMOS sensors pure and simple, according to the inventor of active pixel CMOS sensors, Eric Fossum, in a thread at DPReview. He suggests that emphasizing the NMOS parts of the sensor design, is simply a marketing thing.