What is the point of 12 Megapixels if your color sucks. That and the fact that I own a 12 Megapixel camera, and the best thing it does is consume my laptop space.
While I don't take very many pictures, I am quickly catching up with my Japanese friends who photograph every public opportunity.
Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough
Summary
Olympus says that megapixels have hit the wall for most consumers and will instead focus on other characteristics such as auto focus and low-light shooting for its digital cameras.
Topics
LAS VEGAS--Olympus has declared an end to the megapixel race.
"Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need," said Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, in an interview here at the Photo Marketing Association (PMA). "We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System," Olympus' line of SLR cameras, he said.
Instead, Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting, he said.
Increasing the number of megapixels on cameras is an easy selling point for camera makers, in part because it's a simple concept for people to understand. Even though having more megapixels can enable larger prints and enlargement of subject matter through cropping, adding megapixels comes with some drawbacks.
For one thing, smaller pixels can mean more noisy speckles at the pixel level and can reduce the dynamic range, so brighter areas wash out and darker areas become swaths of black. For another, images take more room on memory cards, hard drives, and Web servers, and cameras need more powerful image processors to handle them. And yesteryear's cameras already had plenty of pixels for making 8x10-inch prints, a size few people exceed.
Camera and sensor makers have been steadily improving digital cameras to compensate for the drawbacks, though. The space on the sensor that's devoted to electronics rather than light gathering has been reduced. Other improvements have come with the tiny microlenses that help each sensor's pixel to gather more light and with the color filters that determine whether a pixel records red, green, or blue.
Some still need more megapixels
Olympus' view is focused chiefly on mainstream photographers. Studio and commercial photographers taking pictures for magazines certainly have a need for more megapixels, Watanabe said.
"We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models," Watanabe said.
The sensors in Olympus' SLRs, an element of the Four Thirds camera system also used by Panasonic, are smaller than those in mainstream SLRs from market leaders Canon and Nikon and much smaller than those in full-frame cameras. Those employ sensors the size of a frame of 35mm film, 36x24mm.
The 12-megapixel view isn't a new one at Olympus.
"I personally believed, before starting the E-System, that 12 was enough," Watanabe said. "We interviewed many professional photographers, people in studios, about how many they needed in the future. Before we started, the system, we had a rough idea we'd be at a plateau at 12 megapixels. We gradually increased the pixel count," with the newer Olympus SLRs now reaching that level.
Autofocus future
Watanabe had another bold projection: autofocus will change dramatically in SLRs.
Today's SLRs use a "phase detect" autofocus subsystem in which some light is diverted from the viewfinder to sensors in the bottom of the camera. These sensors enable the rapid autofocus that helps make SLRs much more responsive than compact cameras, which use a "contrast detect" method that analyzes the data from the image sensor itself.
Watanabe, though, believes image sensor-based autofocus soon will outperform phase-detect systems. That's important not just for compact cameras, but also for SLRs that today often have an awkward problem with composing a shot using the camera's LCD: when the sensor is in use to run the display, the phase-detect autofocus subsystem can't be used. That means live view on SLRs today is typically a frustratingly slow process.
"In terms of speed, phase detect is faster. But imager autofocus will soon exceed phase detect," Watanabe said.
And speed isn't of course the only factor. "In terms of accuracy, imager-based autofocus is much more advantageous. It directly focuses on the surface itself," the exact location where the image will eventually be recorded. "Phase detect focuses not on the real surface but on a virtual surface," the focusing subsystem reached via a moving mirror.
Imager-based autofocus doesn't require the full use of the image sensor area, so it doesn't directly increase power consumption concerns, he said. In Olympus's new midrange E-30 SLR, for example, autofocus uses only a few points on the sensor when autofocusing in live view mode.
This article was originally posted on CNET News.
Just In
I've said for a while that for the vast majority of users, anything north of 8 megapixels is overkill. 90% of my friends' photos end up on Flikr/Photobucket/Myspace/Facebook, where they're squashed down to 2 heavily-compressed megapixels anyway. Lighting and sensor compensation for sub-optimal lighting has always produced better results, and I hope that Olympus sticks to their guns about holding the line at 12MP.
The problem is that companies like to make money. And in the words of George Carlin: "Remember how dumb the average person is...and realize that half are dumber than that". If every camera on the Olympus shelf is 12MP, and Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Kodak release a 13MP camera, people will end up getting that instead, thinking that it's a better camera. Once 12MP becomes the bottom of the MP barrel, you can bet that Olympus will release a 15MP camera to stay competitive.
Behold, the downside of capitalism: what sells is not always what's best, and what's best rarely sells.
Joey
The problem is that companies like to make money. And in the words of George Carlin: "Remember how dumb the average person is...and realize that half are dumber than that". If every camera on the Olympus shelf is 12MP, and Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Kodak release a 13MP camera, people will end up getting that instead, thinking that it's a better camera. Once 12MP becomes the bottom of the MP barrel, you can bet that Olympus will release a 15MP camera to stay competitive.
Behold, the downside of capitalism: what sells is not always what's best, and what's best rarely sells.
Joey
35mm film produces a negative that has more resolution than the current 24 megapixel cameras.
Sure people who dump photos on some lame web album are not going to need anything above 5 megapixels. However, photo enthusiasts - amateur and professional - appreciate the new DSLR's that produce the same results that an old film SLR could produce. That includes the new full frame sensors.
Many hobbyists(i.e. those who do not get paid to take pictures) dream of the day when they can purchase a full frame DSLR with 24+ megapixels for around $500 instead of the current prices of $3000.
Olympus will fall behind the big players if they plan to stick with these caps on megapixels and sensor sizes.
Sure people who dump photos on some lame web album are not going to need anything above 5 megapixels. However, photo enthusiasts - amateur and professional - appreciate the new DSLR's that produce the same results that an old film SLR could produce. That includes the new full frame sensors.
Many hobbyists(i.e. those who do not get paid to take pictures) dream of the day when they can purchase a full frame DSLR with 24+ megapixels for around $500 instead of the current prices of $3000.
Olympus will fall behind the big players if they plan to stick with these caps on megapixels and sensor sizes.
I thought the photo world was REQUIRED to move from film to digital. Without 72 Mega Pixels the digital photo world is dead.
Again, 72MP is NOT for everyday use, but for professional use (i.e. poster size prints, etc.)
Again, 72MP is NOT for everyday use, but for professional use (i.e. poster size prints, etc.)
...but you miss the concept of a "workflow".
People who want 35mm quality and won't settle for less are still using 35mm.
People who need 24MP have (or will purchase) a $3,000 full-frame model.
People who want 24MP but can't afford a full-frame will probably jump ship to Canon or Nikon.
If it's really such a bad decision for Olympus, you'll see >12MP non-full-frame SLRs come down the assembly line.
This is a textbook case of supply and demand and has very little to do with 35mm vs. full frame vs. 12MP.
Joey
People who want 35mm quality and won't settle for less are still using 35mm.
People who need 24MP have (or will purchase) a $3,000 full-frame model.
People who want 24MP but can't afford a full-frame will probably jump ship to Canon or Nikon.
If it's really such a bad decision for Olympus, you'll see >12MP non-full-frame SLRs come down the assembly line.
This is a textbook case of supply and demand and has very little to do with 35mm vs. full frame vs. 12MP.
Joey
You need to add the little caveat of black and white film to your entire
discussion. The color films did not record 24MP with any usable MTF
from a print stand-point. That basically means that in a print, a 20+ MP
35mm camera will far outstrip a 35mm color print at the same print size.
discussion. The color films did not record 24MP with any usable MTF
from a print stand-point. That basically means that in a print, a 20+ MP
35mm camera will far outstrip a 35mm color print at the same print size.
Actually serious professionals don't waste their time with print film either. They stick with slide films - positives - as the color saturation and grain size are ideal for super-sized images or better yet those amazing national geographics photos that every amatuer aims for with their cheap but nearly useless digital cameras.
My 1953 vintage Kodak retina II-A with Zeiss lense still smokes DLRs every day. I just love it when people with their high-zoot DLR ask me what I shot some of my travel photos with and I gladly tell them Kodachrome 64 and my trusty Retina.
My 1953 vintage Kodak retina II-A with Zeiss lense still smokes DLRs every day. I just love it when people with their high-zoot DLR ask me what I shot some of my travel photos with and I gladly tell them Kodachrome 64 and my trusty Retina.
I simply said prints and anyone that knows anything about photography
knows that the end result for ANY film is print. You may have the odd
slide show but those are actually very rare. Pros take photographs for
print. This includes magazine reproduction, fine art, galleries and
advertising copy.
I laugh at people stuck in the dark ages and think 35mm K64 with Zeiss
glass will trump the current 21+ MP cameras from Nikon, Canon and
Sony. The long discontinued K24 may have been close but only in some
areas. In color reproduction, MTF and DR, the current 35mm FX digital
far smokes your sad little Zeiss glass on 35mm film.
knows that the end result for ANY film is print. You may have the odd
slide show but those are actually very rare. Pros take photographs for
print. This includes magazine reproduction, fine art, galleries and
advertising copy.
I laugh at people stuck in the dark ages and think 35mm K64 with Zeiss
glass will trump the current 21+ MP cameras from Nikon, Canon and
Sony. The long discontinued K24 may have been close but only in some
areas. In color reproduction, MTF and DR, the current 35mm FX digital
far smokes your sad little Zeiss glass on 35mm film.
Yes, and it was K25 (Kodachrome ASA 25), I shot 200 rolls of it in Alaska and love the stuff. You pretty much need tripod even in daylight.
Even a small sensor Nikon D200 can surpass all 35mm films except maybe K25.
Even a small sensor Nikon D200 can surpass all 35mm films except maybe K25.
I thought it was K25 and then corrected my thinking to K24 (yes I know,
Google is your friend). I used to shoot K25 years and years ago doing it
hand-held was next to impossible. The results if you got your DR
correct, however, really was stunning. Same can be said of Velvia 50 and
even ES.
The new crop of cameras like the 5D Mk II, D3x, 1Ds Mk II and A900
really do put an end to film. With the exception of B&W that has its own
unique look and detail, digital has fully come of age.
Google is your friend). I used to shoot K25 years and years ago doing it
hand-held was next to impossible. The results if you got your DR
correct, however, really was stunning. Same can be said of Velvia 50 and
even ES.
The new crop of cameras like the 5D Mk II, D3x, 1Ds Mk II and A900
really do put an end to film. With the exception of B&W that has its own
unique look and detail, digital has fully come of age.
Unfortunately, Kodachrome has been earmarked for extinction by the end of this year:
vv
oh wait, you can't and K64 never came close to 20+MP with decent MTF.
-edit: updated 25 to 24.
-edit: updated 25 to 24.
You either like Kodachrome or Fujichrome depending on what kind of
color you like, but for me, Fujichrome had tight grain and brilliant colors
and was a standard E-6 process. Kodak made Ektachrome (probably
where the "E" in "E-6" came from), but it paled in comparison to
Kodachrome, so if you were going to shoot Kodak, you simply shot
Kodachrome. With 50D you could shoot daylight hand held up to about
100mm or as I learned taking clandestine photographs in China, you
could find a solid structure against which to brace yourself and become a
human tripod.
color you like, but for me, Fujichrome had tight grain and brilliant colors
and was a standard E-6 process. Kodak made Ektachrome (probably
where the "E" in "E-6" came from), but it paled in comparison to
Kodachrome, so if you were going to shoot Kodak, you simply shot
Kodachrome. With 50D you could shoot daylight hand held up to about
100mm or as I learned taking clandestine photographs in China, you
could find a solid structure against which to brace yourself and become a
human tripod.
Why the E-6 was important is that it didn't need dyes - the dyes were in
the film and so you could process the film with just chemicals and that
meant I could do it in the bathroom of my hotel or like in "Killing Fields"
it could be done at the embassy with no power. Kodachrome only had 2
labs in the US and one in all of Asia/Japan.
the film and so you could process the film with just chemicals and that
meant I could do it in the bathroom of my hotel or like in "Killing Fields"
it could be done at the embassy with no power. Kodachrome only had 2
labs in the US and one in all of Asia/Japan.
Olympus thinks their 12 MP APS-C sensors will fit the bill for professionals and hard core hobbyists.
Wrong.
I did not even touch on the subject of focal length conversion factors on these APS-C format DSLRs.
Sure the newer 24+ MP full frame cameras will eventually smoke the old 35 mm film cameras.
However, I still own ancient Minolta film cameras that can take better low light pictures than most of the new DSLRs. Especially the Sony DSLRs, which have a harder time in low light than the Nikons.
Wrong.
I did not even touch on the subject of focal length conversion factors on these APS-C format DSLRs.
Sure the newer 24+ MP full frame cameras will eventually smoke the old 35 mm film cameras.
However, I still own ancient Minolta film cameras that can take better low light pictures than most of the new DSLRs. Especially the Sony DSLRs, which have a harder time in low light than the Nikons.
"35mm film produces a negative that has more resolution than the
current 24 megapixel cameras."
You entire post is about FF/FX cameras in the 20+ MP range since
there are no APS-C cameras in that MP range.
Sure the newer 24+ MP full frame cameras will eventually smoke
the old 35 mm film cameras.
The 5+ year old 1Ds did that almost half a decade ago. Eventually
happened while you were sleeping.
However, I still own ancient Minolta film cameras that can take
better low light pictures than most of the new DSLRs. Especially the
Sony DSLRs, which have a harder time in low light than the Nikons.
Not even close. And has not been true for 4-5 years in the Canon
world. ISO 3200 on a 4 year old 5D outdoes ISO 100 on your 35mm
film camera.
current 24 megapixel cameras."
You entire post is about FF/FX cameras in the 20+ MP range since
there are no APS-C cameras in that MP range.
Sure the newer 24+ MP full frame cameras will eventually smoke
the old 35 mm film cameras.
The 5+ year old 1Ds did that almost half a decade ago. Eventually
happened while you were sleeping.
However, I still own ancient Minolta film cameras that can take
better low light pictures than most of the new DSLRs. Especially the
Sony DSLRs, which have a harder time in low light than the Nikons.
Not even close. And has not been true for 4-5 years in the Canon
world. ISO 3200 on a 4 year old 5D outdoes ISO 100 on your 35mm
film camera.
The article wasn't talking about professional photographers and hard core hobbyists, but the majority of users.
Sometimes I wonder how many people just read the title of the article and then jump down to the comments.
I guess that I can't give a good answer however, all my training is in film so thats what I know. I have Digital and I use it for a place and time thing so I can go back to that same point with my film. It is also convenient for auto accidents or catching people doing something wrong. My problem with Digital is that the photos look thin and lifeless. To be fair yes most of all that I see is from a Wal-Mart sold camera. But I think that is a point being made here, it is cheap and it works at least to some extent and that it is good enough, for the masses. It is also a novel idea, wow, I can take a picture with electricity and get a picture from it? Well I'm mesmerized what will they think of next? Then they go to sleep and wake up the next morning and totally forget about it like it's old news, so the new concept has worn off. So as a manufacturer what do you do to peak their interest so that they will let go of their money and purchase your product? That day is coming.
The highest resolution films are slow B&W films. However there is more than resolution to photo quality. When film is blown up grain becomes visible much sooner than the resolution limit is reached. For that reason a lower resolution digital image looks better blown up large than a high resolution film image.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/not-film.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/not-film.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Your mileage may vary, but the fact is that my digital camera has opened the door to new levels of quality I was never able to achieve with film, not even Kodachrome 25, except in the unusual case of using a Celestron C5 telescope (mirrors have no chromatic abberation). My Nikon D-200 is considerably superior to my old Olympus OM-1 and K64.
Keep in mind I use a subjective metric "quality" rather than a difficult to define metric "resolution". Resolution is important, but we are already "diffraction limited" at 10 megapixels on an APS-C size sensor. You can slice it up as fine as you like but there will be no increase in actual image detail, and it has to do with the wavelength of light interacting with the edges of the aperture. To exceed this you must go with a larger sensor and there is absolutely no reason for your pixels to be smaller than the "circle of confusion" (no lens ever made can focus a point-source of light onto a point on the film or sensor). I suppose if you made a cluster of pixels (RGB or RGBG) the same size as the circle of confusion you could eliminate the anti-moire' diffusion screen.
No technical reason, that is; if you slice your sensor into 40 million pixels you might be able to sell more of them, but not to me
Digital images, being continuous tone, I consider superior where wetter water is wanted:
Example: http://www.orneveien.org/nikon-d200/big/088.htm
The film look of National Geographic is achieved with a suitable "S" curve applied to a digital image to increase its mid-range contrast and color saturation. Using "curves" in The Gimp, Aobe Photoshop or Corel Photo Paint achieves this outcome.
Keep in mind I use a subjective metric "quality" rather than a difficult to define metric "resolution". Resolution is important, but we are already "diffraction limited" at 10 megapixels on an APS-C size sensor. You can slice it up as fine as you like but there will be no increase in actual image detail, and it has to do with the wavelength of light interacting with the edges of the aperture. To exceed this you must go with a larger sensor and there is absolutely no reason for your pixels to be smaller than the "circle of confusion" (no lens ever made can focus a point-source of light onto a point on the film or sensor). I suppose if you made a cluster of pixels (RGB or RGBG) the same size as the circle of confusion you could eliminate the anti-moire' diffusion screen.
No technical reason, that is; if you slice your sensor into 40 million pixels you might be able to sell more of them, but not to me
Digital images, being continuous tone, I consider superior where wetter water is wanted:
Example: http://www.orneveien.org/nikon-d200/big/088.htm
The film look of National Geographic is achieved with a suitable "S" curve applied to a digital image to increase its mid-range contrast and color saturation. Using "curves" in The Gimp, Aobe Photoshop or Corel Photo Paint achieves this outcome.
I'm no photographer by any stretch. My OM-1 and I have pulled off some remarkable stuff about once in every third roll, which means in it's lifetime I will have spent more to get awesome results that I probably would have had I gone digital long ago. That having been said...
Shooting pictures as stand alone images has become a thing of the past in the professional market. While I totally agree with Olympus in so far as the average consumer goes, when It comes to shooting today so little has to do with the composition of the shot anymore. The few digital cameras I end up dealing with have a much higher pixel count on the sensor than I would ever need were I simply heading over to the local Kiosk and printing 3x5s to share with my friends and family.
12MP is fine for this type of use, at it's extreme, but I think many of us have come to realize that, when we see a photo in the newspaper or magazine, that it was not composed as seen. The higher pixel count cameras excel at permitting re-framing of the composition, cropping the portion which makes the better picture. Not that I feel that more than 12MP would help most people in this, it's just that I think there will always be a market for the larger count for those who have learned to shoot for later cropping.
Thank you for the tip on using curves, very useful. Now I'm going to end up spending the rest of my morning dragging images in and out of Photoshop...*snicker*
Shooting pictures as stand alone images has become a thing of the past in the professional market. While I totally agree with Olympus in so far as the average consumer goes, when It comes to shooting today so little has to do with the composition of the shot anymore. The few digital cameras I end up dealing with have a much higher pixel count on the sensor than I would ever need were I simply heading over to the local Kiosk and printing 3x5s to share with my friends and family.
12MP is fine for this type of use, at it's extreme, but I think many of us have come to realize that, when we see a photo in the newspaper or magazine, that it was not composed as seen. The higher pixel count cameras excel at permitting re-framing of the composition, cropping the portion which makes the better picture. Not that I feel that more than 12MP would help most people in this, it's just that I think there will always be a market for the larger count for those who have learned to shoot for later cropping.
Thank you for the tip on using curves, very useful. Now I'm going to end up spending the rest of my morning dragging images in and out of Photoshop...*snicker*
But remember how you chose a camera in the
past, before using digital: as there was no
pixels to count, you had to use other factors
such as film sensibility, perfection of colors,
wide color and light gammuts, avoiding unwanted
blurs with the best optics...
Olympus is right there: it is non sense to
develop only the resolution if this is at the
price of the optic quality and color/light
gamuts, or if the reduced pixel size makes it
much more sensitive to thermal noise.
So yes, it's essential to make significant
progresses in the analog part of the device,
because that's something that has declined too
much.
Taking a photo by night or with artificial
light sources is too much dificult to do: you
always loose a lot of colors, because of the
lack of sensitivity, and incorrect calibration
of the sensors. So you get horrible images wiht
yellow-orange aspect, and very poor
distinctions between people faces and the
background.
You also need a better flash on digital cameras
(their temperature of color is wrong under low
light conditions)
past, before using digital: as there was no
pixels to count, you had to use other factors
such as film sensibility, perfection of colors,
wide color and light gammuts, avoiding unwanted
blurs with the best optics...
Olympus is right there: it is non sense to
develop only the resolution if this is at the
price of the optic quality and color/light
gamuts, or if the reduced pixel size makes it
much more sensitive to thermal noise.
So yes, it's essential to make significant
progresses in the analog part of the device,
because that's something that has declined too
much.
Taking a photo by night or with artificial
light sources is too much dificult to do: you
always loose a lot of colors, because of the
lack of sensitivity, and incorrect calibration
of the sensors. So you get horrible images wiht
yellow-orange aspect, and very poor
distinctions between people faces and the
background.
You also need a better flash on digital cameras
(their temperature of color is wrong under low
light conditions)
There is one thing about "good old" 35mm that you
forgot: it's the fact that it is not digital.
It is true that a 35mm negative or slide has a
higher resolution than today's most advanced 20+
Mpx digital camera. But when it comes to
transferring this high resolution (printing photos
on photo paper, or scanning slides for prepress
purposes) you ALWAYS loose this high resolution
and you also loose color information. Simply too
much factors are involved in the process of transferring a photo from a 35mm film to another
support.
So in the end, an inferior (speaking of
resolution) 24 Mpx camera RAW file gives better
final results, is more useful and is less time
consuming than a 35mm film...
If it was not the case, digital photography would
have never dethroned the analog photography in the
first place...
forgot: it's the fact that it is not digital.
It is true that a 35mm negative or slide has a
higher resolution than today's most advanced 20+
Mpx digital camera. But when it comes to
transferring this high resolution (printing photos
on photo paper, or scanning slides for prepress
purposes) you ALWAYS loose this high resolution
and you also loose color information. Simply too
much factors are involved in the process of transferring a photo from a 35mm film to another
support.
So in the end, an inferior (speaking of
resolution) 24 Mpx camera RAW file gives better
final results, is more useful and is less time
consuming than a 35mm film...
If it was not the case, digital photography would
have never dethroned the analog photography in the
first place...
You could buy hosting space and put up full
resolution pictures that will take forever to
upload and download! Once fiber connections are ubiquitous this will cease to be an issue.
resolution pictures that will take forever to
upload and download! Once fiber connections are ubiquitous this will cease to be an issue.
"Nikon will rule the camera world because of this."
Sorry but I don't get the connection. This makes no sense.
Sorry but I don't get the connection. This makes no sense.
I think the key will be in informing and educating the buyers. The more "Joe Bloe" knows about cameras, the better equipped "he" will be in his efforts to pick the correct one for his use.
If the company can manage to do that in a way that the average consumer "will" read/view and can "understand", then I believe they will have a chance at achieving their goals.
If the company can manage to do that in a way that the average consumer "will" read/view and can "understand", then I believe they will have a chance at achieving their goals.
what megapixel count is considered equivalent to 35mm? I have a 12mp Rebel it is sweet!
All from memory so I hope is reasonably accurate:
35mm film has an exposure area that is 24x36 mm or 864 sq mm.
Films generally have a resolving power between 50 and 150 lines per mm, which is kinda like pixels.
So at 50, you get 864*50*50 = 2,160,000
At 150, you get 864*150*150 = 19,440,000
35mm film has an exposure area that is 24x36 mm or 864 sq mm.
Films generally have a resolving power between 50 and 150 lines per mm, which is kinda like pixels.
So at 50, you get 864*50*50 = 2,160,000
At 150, you get 864*150*150 = 19,440,000
I prefer a very high-quality photograph rather than just
megapixels.
But wouldn't analog camera be better than digital
camera? I know I have to take the film to the
photography shop to get it transferred to a photograph
paper and scan the photograph to a computer at home.
megapixels.
But wouldn't analog camera be better than digital
camera? I know I have to take the film to the
photography shop to get it transferred to a photograph
paper and scan the photograph to a computer at home.
I'll take the former, please. Who knows if it will ever be technically feasible, but it would be great to have a sensor that gave in a single exposure the dynamic range that now requires multiple exposures and HDR techniques.
As an astrophotographer I can tell you that the technology exists: I
currently take 16-bit pictures. I have been expecting for several years
now that the next dimension camera makers would make bigger is the
"z", or bit-depth.
I strongly believe this is the next "thing" for camera makers.
currently take 16-bit pictures. I have been expecting for several years
now that the next dimension camera makers would make bigger is the
"z", or bit-depth.
I strongly believe this is the next "thing" for camera makers.
Something specialized and ?ber-expensive? Or has my tax refund just found its purpose in life ;>)
My camera already has a peculiar rating, 11.5 bits color per pixel (NEF compressed), or at least 2.408 intensity steps. This is quite a bit more than can be displayed or printed. Sensors have had a wide dynamic range for a long time; tricks exist to compress this in various ways for display purposes.
Perhaps the point of sensor size and multiple sensors has been overlooked? Talking major market share I agree with the article, the average Joe and Jane Blow "don't need no steenkin'" 12 megapixels or even four!
Working with 12 MP and improving speed on the smaller cameras, by enlarging the sensors or using multiple sensors can be done in the compact cameras. As well s improving anti shake technology and more optical zoom.
But much of the rhetoric here ignores history.
Being older does not mean smarter, but it does grant me the ability to remember back in the day.
The megapixel debate parallels the old film camera market exactly. A majority of the people wanted easy and quick, quality was not a factor per se, as long as the folks in the pic were recognizable. Thus the old 110 instamatics, which served that segment well.
For the instant gratification crowd polaroid had the answer.
For the serious amateur a low end SLR with interchangeable lenses and filters could be had.
The professionals, and the folks with more money to burn and not professional, (The Rolex watch and caddilac crowd) then as now, both groups forked out the big bucks for the exact custom system they needed or wanted.
The same market forces are at work today.
There were a billion more instamatics sold back then than high end camera frames with thousands of dollar lens sets etc.
I'd rather a buck from each of those instamatics, than 20 bucks profit from a thousand high end SLR systems.
Now, with digital cameras, we are all instant gratification oriented. But the market segments remain the same.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Working with 12 MP and improving speed on the smaller cameras, by enlarging the sensors or using multiple sensors can be done in the compact cameras. As well s improving anti shake technology and more optical zoom.
But much of the rhetoric here ignores history.
Being older does not mean smarter, but it does grant me the ability to remember back in the day.
The megapixel debate parallels the old film camera market exactly. A majority of the people wanted easy and quick, quality was not a factor per se, as long as the folks in the pic were recognizable. Thus the old 110 instamatics, which served that segment well.
For the instant gratification crowd polaroid had the answer.
For the serious amateur a low end SLR with interchangeable lenses and filters could be had.
The professionals, and the folks with more money to burn and not professional, (The Rolex watch and caddilac crowd) then as now, both groups forked out the big bucks for the exact custom system they needed or wanted.
The same market forces are at work today.
There were a billion more instamatics sold back then than high end camera frames with thousands of dollar lens sets etc.
I'd rather a buck from each of those instamatics, than 20 bucks profit from a thousand high end SLR systems.
Now, with digital cameras, we are all instant gratification oriented. But the market segments remain the same.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
My 5MP Olympus E1 still takes photos as good if not better than many 10MP cameras, given ideal lighting conditions. Quality is as much about the photographer as it is about the Kit. Olympus is also a Lens maker without peer and their top lenses are designed for 20MP. So me thinks there is some expectation adjusting going on here.
They will not stop at 12MP. However I do agree that if you intend to make money as a Landscape photographer then you are looking at Kit costing tens of thousands to get 25 to 50 MP if quality and resolution are your priority. Or do what I do and stitch multiple shots together. However you can not lug all this Hi MP gear wherever you go, which is what I do. Horse?s for courses as they say.
They will not stop at 12MP. However I do agree that if you intend to make money as a Landscape photographer then you are looking at Kit costing tens of thousands to get 25 to 50 MP if quality and resolution are your priority. Or do what I do and stitch multiple shots together. However you can not lug all this Hi MP gear wherever you go, which is what I do. Horse?s for courses as they say.
A good photographer can compose good photos even using a camera phone. If you give a nikon d3 to a person who does not know how to use it will result the other way around. I agree indeed.
...and companies know it. Ask Intel during the Pentium 4 era, with all those useless gigahertz. It was not until they made a radical change to the architecture that they were able to outperform AMD (whose Athlon 64s and even Semprons were faster at lower frequencies) and ship real quality processors. Still, they already had the market lead by far at that time, and consumers always kept asking for more gigahertz.
Meanwhile, AMD limited itself to restate that their processors were faster (until they were no more so), and did nothing to educate the public. On the contrary, they yielded to the gigahertz misconception and even fueled it with their artificial "+" scheme (e.g., 4000+).
I'm not saying that a direct comparison applies. I'm not sure how many megapixels are enough - it depends on what the user needs them for, how well the manufacturer will compensate for the drawbacks, and how tolerable or important the latter are for the user. But I think that expecting corporations to "educate the public" is na?ve. It is not in their interest to do so. Ignorance sells more...
Meanwhile, AMD limited itself to restate that their processors were faster (until they were no more so), and did nothing to educate the public. On the contrary, they yielded to the gigahertz misconception and even fueled it with their artificial "+" scheme (e.g., 4000+).
I'm not saying that a direct comparison applies. I'm not sure how many megapixels are enough - it depends on what the user needs them for, how well the manufacturer will compensate for the drawbacks, and how tolerable or important the latter are for the user. But I think that expecting corporations to "educate the public" is na?ve. It is not in their interest to do so. Ignorance sells more...
(linkback) Agree or Object? Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough [VOTE] - http://www.pikk.com/35b70
Mr. Watanabe has some very good points, and practically speaking, 12 megapixels is certainly enough to produce excellent photos at the sizes used by most amateur photographers. He's also correct that picture quality is determined by alot of factors, of which the camera's pixel population is just one.
But there are a significant number of advanced amateur photgraphers out there (as well as advanced "wannabes") who will want to make much bigger enlargements of their photos, and for whom the higher pixel populations will always be important in their decisions to purchase particular cameras. A bigger concern, however, is that the purchasing public has a tendency to focus (pardon the pun) on an easily qualtifiable number to distinguish between products of different quality. Just as computer customers have for many years focused on processor speed and hard disk size, photographers will continue to consider the number of megapixels and optical zoom range in digital cameras as a primary factor in their decisions on which to buy.
No doubt there are practical problems in building cameras with ever more pixels, but where problems exist, opportunities abound for creating solutions that work. Where will the Olympus E-series be when "mainstream" cameras have 24 megapixels? Will they even be marketable? Will Olympus be left behind?
Certainly Olympus would do well to help educate the picture-taking public on the many factors that make a camera able to take really good pictures, but Mr. Watanabe would do well to watch where the megapixel race is headed, and be ready and able to market products that are competitive at all levels. I, for one, truly miss the innovation that Olympus brought with their now venerable OM-series film SLRs. So, how about a full-frame 35mm DSLR, Olympus? Something of advanced amateur to professional quality, that would take Olympus OM-series lenses?
But there are a significant number of advanced amateur photgraphers out there (as well as advanced "wannabes") who will want to make much bigger enlargements of their photos, and for whom the higher pixel populations will always be important in their decisions to purchase particular cameras. A bigger concern, however, is that the purchasing public has a tendency to focus (pardon the pun) on an easily qualtifiable number to distinguish between products of different quality. Just as computer customers have for many years focused on processor speed and hard disk size, photographers will continue to consider the number of megapixels and optical zoom range in digital cameras as a primary factor in their decisions on which to buy.
No doubt there are practical problems in building cameras with ever more pixels, but where problems exist, opportunities abound for creating solutions that work. Where will the Olympus E-series be when "mainstream" cameras have 24 megapixels? Will they even be marketable? Will Olympus be left behind?
Certainly Olympus would do well to help educate the picture-taking public on the many factors that make a camera able to take really good pictures, but Mr. Watanabe would do well to watch where the megapixel race is headed, and be ready and able to market products that are competitive at all levels. I, for one, truly miss the innovation that Olympus brought with their now venerable OM-series film SLRs. So, how about a full-frame 35mm DSLR, Olympus? Something of advanced amateur to professional quality, that would take Olympus OM-series lenses?
Remember when Bill Gates said that 64k of memory is all anyone would ever need?
It is true that most people won't print larger than 8x10 inches, and will display photos on web sites like Flickr at 640x480 pixels. But many people might want to view their photos on their giant screen TVs, right? With the way screen technology is advancing, today's 12 megapixel photos might not look so great on a big screen 10 years from now.
OK, so I don't really know a lot about screen technology. If someone wants to disagree, and can reassure me that my 10-megapixel photos will look great on a big screen in 10 years, I won't be offended - I will be relieved!
Sadly, the Grand Canyon photos that I took in 2001 at a resolution of 640x480 looked great on my old computer monitor at the time, but not so great on the 22-inch monitor that I use today, which displays at 1680x1050. I'm so glad I shot some 35mm film too!
It is true that most people won't print larger than 8x10 inches, and will display photos on web sites like Flickr at 640x480 pixels. But many people might want to view their photos on their giant screen TVs, right? With the way screen technology is advancing, today's 12 megapixel photos might not look so great on a big screen 10 years from now.
OK, so I don't really know a lot about screen technology. If someone wants to disagree, and can reassure me that my 10-megapixel photos will look great on a big screen in 10 years, I won't be offended - I will be relieved!
Sadly, the Grand Canyon photos that I took in 2001 at a resolution of 640x480 looked great on my old computer monitor at the time, but not so great on the 22-inch monitor that I use today, which displays at 1680x1050. I'm so glad I shot some 35mm film too!
Technological advances will allow more megapixels on a smaller area of sensor and improve image quality/ dynamic range. The compromises will inevitably be addressed, just as the ability to store data in a smaller and smaller physical space continues. While 12 MP may be more than adequate, and the emphasis may move more to photo quality over size, the MP race will continue just as surely as computers will get faster smaller processors and more memory. And what if I want to display my favorite picture on the side of a building?
DVD's have a limited density because of the wavelength of red or infrared light. That is why "Blu Ray" can store so much more information.
The image has an absolute upper limit of resolution created by the wavelength of light as it impinges upon the edges of your aperture ring. This cannot be exceeded, although it may be possible to impose some holographic tricks and/or Fourier analysis to try to extract more detail (as has been done with deep space telescopes).
The image has an absolute upper limit of resolution created by the wavelength of light as it impinges upon the edges of your aperture ring. This cannot be exceeded, although it may be possible to impose some holographic tricks and/or Fourier analysis to try to extract more detail (as has been done with deep space telescopes).
Intel and AMD ran into the same issue where consumers only looked at clock speeds for CPU. Remember when a CPU was named based on its speed? They changed the way consumers look at CPU when they peaked at around 3.x GHz. Now nobody really pays that much attention to clock speeds when shopping for a CPU. I think the same will need to happen to camera sensors...
Hmmm..I remember when even magazines stuck their noses up at 35 and went for at least medium format. Many went to 35 and now digital. Actually if you check I think you will find many pros and magazines are using 12 megapixels now. I'm using the D300 rather than a D3 as photography is no longer something I work at, but do for fun. The 12 megapixels is good enough for 11 X 14 and a few images will make a good 16 X 20 which is pushing it for 35 as well.
BTW a Kodacolor 100 negative scanned at 4000 dpi which equals 24 megapixels just barely shows the grain when enlarged to screen resolution. That is huge and should be capable of a 16 X 20 salon print. That means the same quality in a 12 megapixel camera is an 8 X 10. OTOH there is a big difference between good and salon quality.
I made a few juried shows and one national cover with that old F4S.
HOWEVER, the market being as fickle as it is, as the price of the sensors comes down we'll see more and more full size sensors. Few camera owners need any where near 12 megapixels, let alone a full frame sensor, but there is a big difference between need and want.
Unfortunately the laws of physics get in the way along about here. A full size sensor requires a much larger lens than does the smaller ones and large glass is *expensive*.Nor is the zoom lens for a full frame sensor capable of the range of one designed for a 3/4 sensor and it will be *heavy*. You can not put a full frame sensor in a camera designed around the smaller sensors. Higher density sensors are wasted on smaller cameras as we've pretty much reached the limits for the lenses. So, yes I believe Oly is limiting themselves to what will become a nitch market, but that 3/4 sensor along with their hardware makes a very nice camera. I don't know about Oly, but I'll bet the smaller sensors will be around and the mainstay of amateur photography for a very long time.
BTW a Kodacolor 100 negative scanned at 4000 dpi which equals 24 megapixels just barely shows the grain when enlarged to screen resolution. That is huge and should be capable of a 16 X 20 salon print. That means the same quality in a 12 megapixel camera is an 8 X 10. OTOH there is a big difference between good and salon quality.
I made a few juried shows and one national cover with that old F4S.
HOWEVER, the market being as fickle as it is, as the price of the sensors comes down we'll see more and more full size sensors. Few camera owners need any where near 12 megapixels, let alone a full frame sensor, but there is a big difference between need and want.
Unfortunately the laws of physics get in the way along about here. A full size sensor requires a much larger lens than does the smaller ones and large glass is *expensive*.Nor is the zoom lens for a full frame sensor capable of the range of one designed for a 3/4 sensor and it will be *heavy*. You can not put a full frame sensor in a camera designed around the smaller sensors. Higher density sensors are wasted on smaller cameras as we've pretty much reached the limits for the lenses. So, yes I believe Oly is limiting themselves to what will become a nitch market, but that 3/4 sensor along with their hardware makes a very nice camera. I don't know about Oly, but I'll bet the smaller sensors will be around and the mainstay of amateur photography for a very long time.
In general yes - but sometime you want to crop the picture and then you effective size could become far larger than 8x10 - so more resolution is helpful and needed in that situatiuon.
Retina? LOL! No way does film match the new digital cameras.
I was a big fan of Kodachrome 64 Pro and 25 Pro. Shot my
whole advanced photo essay class in journalism school with
those two films and Leicas, which I shot with for over 20 years.
I was a big advocate of film over digital for years. Even as I
used $15,000 1.3 megapixel cameras with no auto white
balance. And as digital improved in quality, I stuck with film as
much as possible. Only shooting digital on deadlines
impossible to keep with film.
But now things are differet. I shoot with Canon's full frame 1Ds
Mark II and 5D Mark II (and having used Nikon's D700). Film
can't even come close to top DSLs when it comes to image
quality. Period.
Color accuracy is way better with digital (assuming shooting
RAW files) and the grain you mention is non-existent in larger
digital files. Kodachrome 25 has grainy blue skies. My Canons
do not. No grain. Smooth tonality. I've blown up images from a
6 MP 60D to 24 inches that are better than what Kodachrome
could possibly produce.
For a long time I resisted digital until I shot one assignment on
it. I saw the potential and compared the difference between
digital and film and even back in 6 MP days accepted the reality
that digital was better on so many fronts it was worth giving up
some of the few advantage film had back then. Now with full
frame cameras there is zero compromise.
In fact, lenses have a hard time keeping up with the cameras. Nikon has had to update their wide zooms because of their 12
MP bodies - the D3 and D700, let alone their new MP champ
the D3X. The 14-24 2.8 has no peer (which a Canon rep
conceded to me at a trade show recently). The 24-70 2.8 is
vastly better than the older 28-70 2.8. And way better than
Canon's 24-70 2.8 which is my workhorse lens at work. (I own
both and shoot Nikons at home). Canon will do the same as
some of their wides are not up to the task of pulling all the
quality out of their 21 megapixel bodies.
I was a big fan of Kodachrome 64 Pro and 25 Pro. Shot my
whole advanced photo essay class in journalism school with
those two films and Leicas, which I shot with for over 20 years.
I was a big advocate of film over digital for years. Even as I
used $15,000 1.3 megapixel cameras with no auto white
balance. And as digital improved in quality, I stuck with film as
much as possible. Only shooting digital on deadlines
impossible to keep with film.
But now things are differet. I shoot with Canon's full frame 1Ds
Mark II and 5D Mark II (and having used Nikon's D700). Film
can't even come close to top DSLs when it comes to image
quality. Period.
Color accuracy is way better with digital (assuming shooting
RAW files) and the grain you mention is non-existent in larger
digital files. Kodachrome 25 has grainy blue skies. My Canons
do not. No grain. Smooth tonality. I've blown up images from a
6 MP 60D to 24 inches that are better than what Kodachrome
could possibly produce.
For a long time I resisted digital until I shot one assignment on
it. I saw the potential and compared the difference between
digital and film and even back in 6 MP days accepted the reality
that digital was better on so many fronts it was worth giving up
some of the few advantage film had back then. Now with full
frame cameras there is zero compromise.
In fact, lenses have a hard time keeping up with the cameras. Nikon has had to update their wide zooms because of their 12
MP bodies - the D3 and D700, let alone their new MP champ
the D3X. The 14-24 2.8 has no peer (which a Canon rep
conceded to me at a trade show recently). The 24-70 2.8 is
vastly better than the older 28-70 2.8. And way better than
Canon's 24-70 2.8 which is my workhorse lens at work. (I own
both and shoot Nikons at home). Canon will do the same as
some of their wides are not up to the task of pulling all the
quality out of their 21 megapixel bodies.
faveon sensors on olympus would be fantastic. the best lens with the best sensors, then olympus can stop at 12 mp and beat the crap out of everyone !
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
