From what I can see, everyone is assuming the new pro camera will be called the E-3 and the new evolt one the E-500. The other rumor is that they will both have built-in image stabilization. If they can do that without making the bodies larger or substantially heavier...
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
New Esystem SLRbs
- Thread starter ditto1958
- Start date
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
I wonder what the optimum number of megapixels is to equal or outperform film. 16 certainly seems a lot at present and up to the latest Canon standard but if Canon goes up to 30 or some other extremely high figure, will that leave Olympus behind? Or would all those extra megapixels make any actual difference to the quality of the pictures rather than to the massive size it could be printed at? Just thinking out loud.
John
John
Hi John,
I do not think that the absolute number will be important. Sooner or later the users get out of this MP hype and focus on what is really important.
In film-times, it was never important how many lp/mm a film can resolve (above a certain range). Peopel bought a film, because it gave great results for the print size they needed in terms of resolution, sharpness, colour, contrast etc.
So a 10MP camera can be more than enough, if you do not print bigger then 1 meter x 1 meter. In that case, what really important is the qualtity of all other factors, which are decided mainly by the lens. A chip can not make a picture better, if the lens is not giving him the detail-information he needs for it.
I do not think that Canon will go far higher than 20MP. The current top model 1DsMark II has 16MP and is almost the same quality like the Nikon D2x with 12MP. So Canon will not increase production costs with higher MPs, if you can only see it in prints above a certain "human beeing print size". This would be a waste of efforts. Noone prints that big.
Canon has its joker with its fullframe sensor. Time will tell, whether this will be really needed in the future.
I do not think that the absolute number will be important. Sooner or later the users get out of this MP hype and focus on what is really important.
In film-times, it was never important how many lp/mm a film can resolve (above a certain range). Peopel bought a film, because it gave great results for the print size they needed in terms of resolution, sharpness, colour, contrast etc.
So a 10MP camera can be more than enough, if you do not print bigger then 1 meter x 1 meter. In that case, what really important is the qualtity of all other factors, which are decided mainly by the lens. A chip can not make a picture better, if the lens is not giving him the detail-information he needs for it.
I do not think that Canon will go far higher than 20MP. The current top model 1DsMark II has 16MP and is almost the same quality like the Nikon D2x with 12MP. So Canon will not increase production costs with higher MPs, if you can only see it in prints above a certain "human beeing print size". This would be a waste of efforts. Noone prints that big.
Canon has its joker with its fullframe sensor. Time will tell, whether this will be really needed in the future.
If Olympus is smart, they'll realize that they will never be the Ford or Chevy of the camera business. They will leave that to Canon and Nikon and work on carving out the most solid niche they can. They probably should stop fighting the megapixel war and should continue instead with their tradition of surprising the photography world with unexpected innovations. Just as with personal computers, the race for faster processors eventually petered out when customers noticed that no one but serious gamers needed more gigabytes, with digital cameras, I think we will soon reach the point where such things as the quality of lenses, monitors and printers are bottlenecks in the process and not megapixels.
I was looking at some galleries last night where people were showing off shots they took of flowers with their Olympus E-1's and E-300's. Many of their shots were simply stunning (even though the reviewers consistently pan the E-1's supposed pixel shortcomings).
One magazine review I saw said that Canon's current pro dslr (16.6 mp?) either matches or slightly outresolves 100 iso film. If the new E cameras have about 12-16 mp, that should make many people happy. I think we're close to the point of plateau in the megapixel area and camera makers should concentrate more on improving other parts of their products.
I was looking at some galleries last night where people were showing off shots they took of flowers with their Olympus E-1's and E-300's. Many of their shots were simply stunning (even though the reviewers consistently pan the E-1's supposed pixel shortcomings).
One magazine review I saw said that Canon's current pro dslr (16.6 mp?) either matches or slightly outresolves 100 iso film. If the new E cameras have about 12-16 mp, that should make many people happy. I think we're close to the point of plateau in the megapixel area and camera makers should concentrate more on improving other parts of their products.
zuikoholic
Active Member
Dirk, I disagree that a full-frame sensor is irrelavent. I feel it is very important, not because of megapixel counts, but because of DOF issues. The smaller sensors will always give larger DOF, that's physics and can not change. I happen to prefer the DOF characteristics of the 35mm film frame size. As for megapixels, I'm not so worried. Canon's 1Ds mk II, the full-frame 16 Mp camera, has the same *sized* pixels as the Canon 10D (which I have and am very happy with). So, for my own purposes, the 16 Mp 1Ds mk II is my dream camera because its pixel density is fine (related to noise issues) and the sensor size is full-frame (DOF issues).
> > Posted by John Strain (Jsmisc) on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:37 am: > > I wonder what the optimum number of megapixels is to equal or > outperform film. 16 certainly seems a lot at present and up to the > latest Canon standard but if Canon goes up to 30 or some other > extremely high figure, will that leave Olympus behind? Or would all > those extra megapixels make any actual difference to the quality of > the pictures rather than to the massive size it could be printed at? > Just thinking out loud. > John
John,
Put a good piece of glass in front of the E-1 or E-300 and the results are comparable to film.
Herb
John,
Put a good piece of glass in front of the E-1 or E-300 and the results are comparable to film.
Herb
> >>Posted by Neil Donoghue (Zuikoholic) on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:45 pm: >> >>the 16 Mp 1Ds mk II is my dream camera because its >>pixel density is fine (related to noise issues) and the sensor size is >>full-frame (DOF issues). >
My dream would be a revised Contax N Digital -- sort out the bugs, full frame sensor, and move it's pixel count to about 12mp. That would be great. Great handling camera, great lenses, and once you sorted it out and figured it out, gave truly outstanding image quality). I'm waiting to see what happens with Contax. If it truly goes nowhere and is allowed to die, then I guess I'll have to upgrade my E-20 with the E-3 (or whatever it will be called).
My dream would be a revised Contax N Digital -- sort out the bugs, full frame sensor, and move it's pixel count to about 12mp. That would be great. Great handling camera, great lenses, and once you sorted it out and figured it out, gave truly outstanding image quality). I'm waiting to see what happens with Contax. If it truly goes nowhere and is allowed to die, then I guess I'll have to upgrade my E-20 with the E-3 (or whatever it will be called).
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Thanks Dirk for the helpful comments,
I may yet go for Olympus and have the added option of using my Zeiss lenses via an adapter. One of the things I like about the Olympus is the comparatively small size coupled with the dust filter. Apart from the cost, the Canon is just too big for me to be comfortable with. The Nikon is also very expensive and quite large. No doubt both are excellent.
I will probably wait for the next generation of the E1.
I remember reading that a moon lander used a digital camera which was only 1 megapixel and it sent back superb pictures.
Herb,
Thanks for the comment obviously based on experience. Real world use is always more useful than just relying on test reports.
John
I may yet go for Olympus and have the added option of using my Zeiss lenses via an adapter. One of the things I like about the Olympus is the comparatively small size coupled with the dust filter. Apart from the cost, the Canon is just too big for me to be comfortable with. The Nikon is also very expensive and quite large. No doubt both are excellent.
I will probably wait for the next generation of the E1.
I remember reading that a moon lander used a digital camera which was only 1 megapixel and it sent back superb pictures.
Herb,
Thanks for the comment obviously based on experience. Real world use is always more useful than just relying on test reports.
John
> I suspect that Olympus's thinking on the 4/3 system was that consumers and pros accept small sensors (there were no full-frame sensors when the E-1 appeared, let alone when it was designed) and that, considering how little had been happening with the OM series lately, it made sense to produce a camera built around a small sensor rather than put a small sensor in a body designed for full frame. Making it smaller than most allowed for potentially smaller lighter bodies (I'm still waiting); it also simplified the equivalent focal length calculations -- most people find it easier to multiply by two than by 1.6 or so.
>I disagree that "no lens maker needs to make a lens capable of resolving much more than is actually required by the day's technology." That might be true for film, which is pretty mature technology (and likely to progress more slowly now that digital is so popular) but is surely not so for digital, which is new enough that rapid, major progress is acceptable. For interchangeable-lens cameras, making a lens just for today's technology might lower its cost, but could be ruinous for the maker's reputation once imaging technology improves enough to make the corner-cutting obvious. A smart lens maker should take an educated guess about what would be needed at least 30 years down the pike. For cameras without interechangeable lenses, though, this would not apply -- when you move to a newer body you'll perforce move also to a newer lens.