Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: m4/3 sensor future  (Read 1824 times)

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #40 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.
Logged

Herbc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #41 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 doesnít 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.
Logged

Herbc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #42 on: January 01, 2019, 03:35:48 PM »

indeed-camera is least important thing. 8)
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 846
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 328
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #44 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. 
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

RogTallbloke

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #45 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.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2019, 09:47:04 AM by RogTallbloke »
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2951
    • Photos
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2019, 11:26:21 AM »

For a backpacker who is very conscientious about weight but still wants quality I think itís 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 donít 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.

RogTallbloke

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #47 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...
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 03:30:50 PM by RogTallbloke »
Logged

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 454
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #48 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 ...
Logged

RichDesmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #49 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.
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #50 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)...
Logged

Keith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: m4/3 sensor future
« Reply #51 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up