1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Olympus E system to go mirrorless

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by Damien_Demolder, Feb 22, 2010.

  1. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    That many pixels on that size sensor, and the noise would make the shots unusable at normal ISOs - higher ones are totally out of the question.
  2. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Kodak research showed 6MP was good upto A2, But it can be pushed to produce A1 even A0
    depending on print method say inkjet. That is why pros demanded 18MP for their work
    make sure it would cover A0 and be available for crop. I have got a A3 print from 3MP
    which looks fine to me and others done on dye-sub. Even if print technology moves forward
    it is unlike to reproduce from a 60MP image. The reason why camera manufactures have still
    continued to go up from 6MP is so that picture editors can crop (which is a form of digital zoom)
    and still have a 6MP image at the end of it. Also we might not be printing images in 10 years
    with the rise of cheap A3 LEP picture frames which can display rolling images you have taking
    instead of one image. Remember years ago all press photographer carried 5x4 cameras with
    flashbulb. It's been 35mm SLR for 50 years? I think we are on the edge of another change.
  3. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    With the greatest respect...
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    A good point, well made. :)
  5. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    Made me laugh anyway.
  6. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Most things Kodak have said or done over the last 10 years have made me laugh. Better than crying, I think. ;)
  7. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I've seen decent enough A3 prints from a 3MP camera, the EOS D30. That camera had an APS-C sensor, so the photosites were of generous proportions, and didn't suffer much from noise. Still, compare an A3 from that with one from the EOS 5D II at a similar price, and anyone could tell the difference - now that shows how sensors have developed over the last few years and the benefit of more pixels. I would much rather use Canon as an example than Kodak, as they do seem to understand the market and the technology; Canon have been able to push the number of pixels on larger sensors up whilst retaining low noise, but with small sensors, such as those used in bridge cameras, they've actually reduced the number of pixels in the quest for improved quality. So yes, smallish numbers of pixels can produce a decent print, but only when that equates to larger photosites and a higher signal to noise ratio: to simply use a small number of miniscule, incredibly noisy pixels is a clear recipe for truly appalling quality.
  8. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Hmmm. Wasn't there similar research which "proved" that the world would only need 3 or 4 computers in it? ;)
  9. Bone_Idle

    Bone_Idle Well-Known Member

    Research (by some marketing people) shows that you have to have more pixels than the photographer next to you and the quality of the photograph is entirely down to the number of pixels. :D
  10. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Modern DSLRS with little sensors don't seem to suffer much from mirror slap - you'd have a tough job noticing the difference between shots taken with mirror lockup and without when using a tripod so I doubt I'll be seeing a convincing demonstration of a mirrorless camera being used at slower shutter speeds handheld any time soon.

    I understand the theory but in practice I can't see it making any real difference. If anything the greater mass of the larger camera might resist inertia better. IS muddies the water further.

    In short I don't believe vibration my DSLR causes is the limiting factor for what I can handhold - I am.
  11. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Sorry if I cannot work it out. But what point are you making with reference to the wordsonpictures website (I did have a look)? Kodak's research was to calculate the minimum number of pixels for reproduction of images in print form.
    Using that my suggestion is that bridge cameras will become even more popular and mirrorless 43 cameras will take over from dSLRs. I reckon compact will disappear because of mobile phone having 10MP sensor onboard. So the market will be bridge, mirrorless 43 and for the top end some dSLR and high res medium formats. The dSLR will be pushed out of the middle ground.

    In reply to the pixel count issue and sensor. The Minolta Z1 in 2003 had 3MP 400 ISO 1/2.7" sensor which was noisy. Today we have the Olympus SP800 14MP 1600 ISO 1/2.33" sensor and that is less noisy with the sensor only getting 15% bigger. Took less than 7 years for that.
  12. mark_jacobs

    mark_jacobs Retired

    None. That would be the author's website/'signature'. In this case Damien, AP's Editor.
  13. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Kodak's research may have calculated the MINIMUM number of pixels but, without access to said research, I bet it didn't say that more pixels were harmful did it?

    That would require a reverse in the current trend of manufacturers producing starter DSLRs with features designed to make them appeal to people who would previously have bought a bridge camera. It would also need to reverse the trend of people buying them, or Micro 4/3 cameras, in preference to bridge cameras.

    Have you ever used a mobile phone camera? The image quality is not what I would consider acceptable for most purposes.

    For what it is worth DSLR sales GREW last year despite a global recession, or so said an august journal towards the end of the year. I think it was called AP.
  14. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Er... wordsonpictures is his own site and part of his signature. It has nothing to do with anything else
  15. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Perhaps you could provide a link to that Kodak research result - without such a link this argument seems destined to go absolutely nowhere

  16. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    Not quite, there maybe more EVIL cameras soon, but I think Olympus are saying that they will not be making any SLR cameras with mirrors in 5 years.

    Do you think this announcement means we will never see an M4/3 camera with a Rangefinder?
  17. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    I would agree that is a likely direction Canon will move. They already have 90% of that
    design in the the EOS 7D. So a mirrorless version would be a small leap. Therefore they
    probably will jump a bit further and have 43 by around 2012. To compete with the Lumix G1.
    By that time the resolution should be equal if not better than the EOS 5D MARK II. Also EVFs
    would have moved on as well. The review in AP showed that a EOS 7D can hold its own against
    a EOS 5D MARK II.

    I liked to ask a question which does connect to mirrorless and cameras getting compact/lighter.
    I do airshow photography and from looking at kit weights and the range of photos you might
    wish to take (from my experience 28mm upto maybe 400mm) then the kit comes out to over 2KG.

    How much kit do dSLR users carry when engaged in a photography event? Say airshow etc.
  18. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    I think you might be wrong there. Image display is a combination of the eye's distance the the display medium. The closer you get to the EVF the more the number of dot you need to keep the illusion working. Take the monitor you are looking at now. It works because you are least 20cm away from it. If you reduce your view distance to say 5cm you start to see how it done. Illusion gone. Having a EVF 4x the sensor will achieve nothing be cause you will have to expand the same pixel 4x. If the sensor can only see 12MP you can only produce 12MP not 48MP. You just be doing alot of cloning.

    But the human eye comes in at around 300MP! So EVFs will always be a compromise until that can be matched. But in today's camera the purpose of the viewfinder is really only composition. We no longer use it for focus. So as long as there is enough information for the user to construct the layout of the image and check what is in the frame of the scene then it doing it's job.
  19. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    That may well be what the narrative suggested, but if you look at the Resolution, noise and sensitivity box, there seems a world of difference between the line charts shown there. The 5D MkII seems to me far in advance of the 7D, the lines are much clearer.
  20. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Depends if you like photographing the scales on springtails as it can more than hold it's own from what I've seen :)

Share This Page