View Poll Results: What do you want in your next Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds camera sensor?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • More pixels at about the same quality as we have had for 2 1/2 years.

    1 2.27%
  • The same number of pixels but significantly improved quality.

    39 88.64%
  • Not sure.

    4 9.09%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    I think he might mean pixel 'binning' or 'combining', where a group of sensor photosites represents a single image pixel at the expense of overall resolution.

    Ian
    Exactly, if they somehow could pool the data from several pixels in order to minimize error.
    My main issue are those black backgrounds with some blue and red spots inside. And banding!


    BR,
    Anders

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    291
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    14
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    26 Posts
    Likes: 1
    Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Voted not sure. Cause of there is a simple reason:

    - as we all know size matters
    - people in different areas have different needs
    - but for a home user I have most of the times even 5Mpix enough and never felt short with 10

    So entry and pro level would love to have more pix. People between those 2 don't need more pix so they're happy with quality improvement only. The problem is that most of the users get into one brand from one or another side.
    So bigger number = bigger marketshare = better support and development.
    E-1; E-520; E-M10; ZD 14-42; ZD 35+CIR-PL; ZD 40-150; FL-36R; Metz 52-AF1

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    182
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    55
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    18 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    I would like to see what Olympus can do with a FOVEON sensor.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,526
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    423
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    248
    Thanked in
    204 Posts
    Likes: 157
    Liked 103 Times in 74 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    I am sure that I would prefer 12 MP with improved quality. One could argue that more pixels would be "nice," but for what I do with my camera and photos--and what most people do, if I had to guess--additional pixels are irrelevant. Unless you are doing extreme cropping or printing at very large sizes (at least 20x24" IMO), there is nothing gained by having more than 12 MP. Extreme crops require top-notch (i.e. expensive) lenses for good image quality. And even huge prints can look great with only 12 MP as when viewed from a normal distance.

    Additional dynamic range and better high-ISO performance are much more useful to me. And although I would never suggest designing cameras simply to satisfy critics and reviewers, the issue that reviewers most often cite with 4/3 gear is the image quality compared to cameras with APS-C size sensors. It's the DR and high-ISO performance that puts (some) people off. Far fewer reviews complain that 12MP is not enough. Given that a smaller sensor must make some compromises, I would much rather compromise by having fewer pixels. I think that this would also be much easier to justify to critics--to say "we have equal image quality, and few people need any more pixels."

    Also, even if both pixel count and quality could be improved, keep in mind that the extra pixels still don't come for free. More pixels require sharper lenses (which will be larger and more expensive) to gain any advantage. And physics dictates that more pixels means a lower diffraction limit--diffraction will limit sharpness at larger apertures than with fewer pixels, thus making one choose between sharpness and depth-of-field.

    - Hal -
    A Still Mind - Photography, Music, Meditation, Ministry - www.astillmind.net
    Olympus E-M5; Panasonic-Leica DG Summilux 25mm; Zuiko 12-60 SWD, 50-200 SWD; Sigma 105 Macro; Rokinon (Samyang) 7.5mm fisheye; Olympus 8/1.8 PRO fisheye; FL-50R; Giottos MT-8361 tripod with Gitzo GH2780QR ballhead.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,338
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    106
    Thanked in
    81 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Well, I don't know about Micro Four-Thirds lenses, but I know that good Zuiko Four-Thirds lenses easily out-resolve the Four-Thirds sensors. So greater sensor resolution could certainly be achieved without needing an upgrade to lenses - at least with Four-Thirds lenses that I know of.
    Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

    cyclopsphoto.ca

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fulbeck
    Posts
    245
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    69
    Thanked in
    49 Posts
    Likes: 7
    Liked 45 Times in 28 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    I have two different requirements from my sensors:

    For landscape and similar photography the current 12.3m is as much as I need, as minimal cropping is required. So for this type of image better dynamic range and high ISO ability are the deciding factors.

    For my wildlife and macro work which sometimes involves huge crops then a higher number of pixels would be an advantage.

    All my lenses are Pro or Top Pro so I am totally confident in their ability to deliver the goods and I would not think of changing them in the foreseeable future. Sensor development may see me changing one of my cameras for wildlife work one day, but the E5 for landscape will see me out I think!

    David
    E-M1, Tamron 14-150mm, ED 75-300mm, ED 60mm, FL50R,
    Canon 7DII, Canon 400mm f5.6L, Sigma 150-600mm Sport, EF 55-250mm, EF 18-55mm, National Geographic Expedition Carbon.

    "It is better to light a single candle than curse the darkness" - Confucius (551479 BC)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hemel Hempstead UK
    Posts
    7,782
    Blog Entries
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    164
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    797
    Thanked in
    496 Posts
    Likes: 98
    Liked 123 Times in 61 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmorison View Post
    I have two different requirements from my sensors:

    For landscape and similar photography the current 12.3m is as much as I need, as minimal cropping is required. So for this type of image better dynamic range and high ISO ability are the deciding factors.

    For my wildlife and macro work which sometimes involves huge crops then a higher number of pixels would be an advantage.

    All my lenses are Pro or Top Pro so I am totally confident in their ability to deliver the goods and I would not think of changing them in the foreseeable future. Sensor development may see me changing one of my cameras for wildlife work one day, but the E5 for landscape will see me out I think!

    David
    Theoretically, as macro work (unless you are image stacking) works with apertures well beyond the diffraction softening threshold, I wouldn't have thought more pixels would be beneficial.

    Ian
    Founder/editor
    Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
    Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
    Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
    Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
    Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
    Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,099
    Blog Entries
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    398
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    443
    Thanked in
    354 Posts
    Likes: 70
    Liked 115 Times in 83 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    I think he might mean pixel 'binning' or 'combining', where a group of sensor photosites represents a single image pixel at the expense of overall resolution.

    Ian
    Ah, I think I understand. On, say, a 16mp sensor 2 adjacent pixels would combine to double the light gathering capability in low light, giving an effective resolution of 8mp but with much greater sensitivity towards light without amplifying the signal. Have I got that right? If it would work it would be a great idea.
    View my ebook, The Light Fantastic, at: http://store.blurb.co.uk/ebooks/3026...ight-fantastic

    John

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,099
    Blog Entries
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    398
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    443
    Thanked in
    354 Posts
    Likes: 70
    Liked 115 Times in 83 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Looking at the numbers 16mp seems a massive improvement over "just" 12mp. However, in real life it means a 15 inch print at 300ppi instead of a 13 inch print, which really isn't much to get excited about. In fact on a print that large 250ppi is more than adequate (I suspect even less on an E-5) and that gives a 16x12 print from 12mp. Bearing in mind that the frame size for that print when mounted is most likely to be 20x16 I can't see many people wanting to hang anything much bigger on their wall. And that's before we even start to upsize or interpolate the 12mp file!

    So, apart from a marketing ploy to people who probably don't print larger than 6x4 or 7x5, the extra pixels are of little consequence, whereas higher ISO capability and increased dynamic range would be a real benefit to us all.

    As an exemption from that I do accept that more pixels are beneficial to wildlife togs who often need to crop quite severely. However, bear in mind that due to sensor size 12mp on Four Thirds is already the equivalent of 48mp on full frame at any given focal length!
    View my ebook, The Light Fantastic, at: http://store.blurb.co.uk/ebooks/3026...ight-fantastic

    John

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hemel Hempstead UK
    Posts
    7,782
    Blog Entries
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    164
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    797
    Thanked in
    496 Posts
    Likes: 98
    Liked 123 Times in 61 Posts

    Re: More megapixels or stay at 12MP but improve the quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Perriment View Post
    Looking at the numbers 16mp seems a massive improvement over "just" 12mp. However, in real life it means a 15 inch print at 300ppi instead of a 13 inch print, which really isn't much to get excited about. In fact on a print that large 250ppi is more than adequate (I suspect even less on an E-5) and that gives a 16x12 print from 12mp. Bearing in mind that the frame size for that print when mounted is most likely to be 20x16 I can't see many people wanting to hang anything much bigger on their wall. And that's before we even start to upsize or interpolate the 12mp file!

    So, apart from a marketing ploy to people who probably don't print larger than 6x4 or 7x5, the extra pixels are of little consequence, whereas higher ISO capability and increased dynamic range would be a real benefit to us all.

    As an exemption from that I do accept that more pixels are beneficial to wildlife togs who often need to crop quite severely. However, bear in mind that due to sensor size 12mp on Four Thirds is already the equivalent of 48mp on full frame at any given focal length!
    200ppi is normally fine for prints. And the larger the print, the lower the ppi is required as the viewing distance increases.

    Ian
    Founder/editor
    Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
    Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
    Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
    Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
    Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
    Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •