fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              16              18              33       34       end
  

Archive 2012 · A Digital OM?

  
 
wjmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #1 · A Digital OM?


Simon Kennedy wrote:
I keep checking this thread hoping someone will post another picture of the beast... how much longer!!


Just under two weeks now! For the most recent pictures I would suggest http://www.43rumors.com



Jan 26, 2012 at 06:04 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #2 · A Digital OM?


carstenw wrote:
Yakim, unless you have a specific reason for not doing this, do consider the Leica 25/1.4 instead of the 20/1.7...


I actually have two.
1. Generally speaking I like the 35mm equivalent better than the 50mm one.
2. What I've seen so far suggests that there is no significant difference is wide open sharpness, bokeh and AF.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Jan 26, 2012 at 06:30 PM
theophilus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #3 · A Digital OM?


Basically fabs work like this:

1) fixed cost to operate whether you run any material through or not
2) companies that can fill a fab 24/7/365 have big advantages (see: Intel)
3) if you can't fill your fab you are screwed and it will sink your company (see: AMD spinning off Spansion, selling all their fabs but the one in Dresden)

Basically if Sony fills a fab making sensors they have a cost advantage. If they can't fill it other companies hear about it and get competitive pricing because Sony doesn't want a fab sitting idle. If the fab is full Sony can charge more. Not quite basic supply/demand but close.



Jan 27, 2012 at 12:19 PM
wjmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #4 · A Digital OM?


Latest rumors say new OM-D sensor has a two stop improvement over the E-P3 for jpeg, I would also love to see some more flexibility in RAW as well, wish they would have stayed at 12MP and really boosted ISO performance at all levels, but this is good news none the less. Also, OM-D is the "line" name like "PEN" and the actual body will start with an E, maybe the E-O1

Also, I found a link to one of the first

&feature=related" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">OMD videos



Jan 27, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #5 · A Digital OM?


A two stop improvement over the E-P3 means slightly better than the GX1...if the body has everything they're claiming, including real improvement in dynamic range, this should be a great camera, and should immediately ascend to the top of the micro 4/3 heap.

I'm quite satisfied with my GH2 and GX1, but if they make significant improvements, I might pick up one on the cheap next year when the next model is released, or when the price drops. More than likely, though, I'll sit this generation out.



Jan 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #6 · A Digital OM?


wjmeyer wrote:
Also, I found a link to one of the first

&feature=related" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">OMD videos



Cute. Even as a former OM-1 and OM-2 owner, when I hear "OM-D" (or "OMD", as the case may be) they are exactly what I think of first.





Jan 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM
kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #7 · A Digital OM?


wjmeyer wrote:
Latest rumors say new OM-D sensor has a two stop improvement over the E-P3 for jpeg, I would also love to see some more flexibility in RAW as well, wish they would have stayed at 12MP and really boosted ISO performance at all levels, but this is good news none the less.


Two stop improvement for JPEG sounds exactly like what you'd expect from the G3/GX1 sensor with slightly more aggressive JPEG noise reduction.

At the risk of dropping off topic, in sensors of this size a 12MP design would have no advantage in image noise performance over a 16MP design. In fact, depending on the dominant source of the read-noise a lower MP count sensor can have more shadow noise than a higher MP count sensor of the same size and process technology.

And yes, as you say, getting a GX1/G3 performance sensor into an Olympus body is really good news!

Ken



Jan 27, 2012 at 12:56 PM
wjmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #8 · A Digital OM?


Lotusm50 wrote:
Cute. Even as a former OM-1 and OM-2 owner, when I hear "OM-D" (or "OMD", as the case may be) they are exactly what I think of first.




I'm sorry, I couldn't resist, like you, everytime I read OM-D I think of OMD, I should have found their actual video, but I'm really trying to forget the makeup and hairdo's of that era



Jan 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #9 · A Digital OM?


Lotusm50 wrote:
Sony sells a lot to outside of Sony, and the sensor sold to these other companies wind up in products that are cost competitive to Sony products, so it is not clear how much of any advantage Sony cameras get from having their sensor manufacturer within the same corporate umbrella.It is also therefor reasonable to assume that Olympus using a Sony sensor would get that at a price that was competitive, and not significantly more expensive.


With regard to FF, the Sony FF sensors have not shown up in any competitively priced camera offered by another manufacturer compared to what Sony sells so I think the jury is still out in that regard (The Nikon D800 looks like it may sell for $3000 so that might be a turning point). It very well may be that Sony sold the A900/A850 at little or no profit (or even at a loss) in order to make a huge move into that market and establish themselves with a "status" product for the rest of the line. It would not be the first time Sony has done that.



Jan 27, 2012 at 01:00 PM
wjmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #10 · A Digital OM?


Hi Ken, I do not know all the technology behind sensor design, but I do know that lower MP sensors tend to have improved noise over higher MP sensors, so that was why I made that comment. I also prefer lower MP sensor because they lend to smaller file sizes. That being said, I come from the DSLR world, and things may be different for MFT.


Jan 27, 2012 at 01:03 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #11 · A Digital OM?


Lower MP sensors may have improved noise PER PIXEL. But unless you're viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn't matter. Higher resolution means that pixel of noise grain is smaller in the final image, regardless of what size you print at.


Jan 27, 2012 at 01:41 PM
HopeIsEternal
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #12 · A Digital OM?


I really dislike this claim of "But unless you're viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn't matter"
This might have been true in the Film days when the normal viewing medium was a fixed size print. But today, images are frequently viewed/used at 100% or close to it especially when performing image processing/editing/cropping functions.

If the claim were really true that per-pixel performance did not matter as much as finished print size, the manufacturers would be selling cameras labelled by the print size. But they don't. They sell them by how many megapixels they have. Consumers have a right to expect the same or better per-pixel noise/acuity performance between camera upgrades even if the newer cameras have increased resolution.


Jman13 wrote:
Lower MP sensors may have improved noise PER PIXEL. But unless you're viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn't matter. Higher resolution means that pixel of noise grain is smaller in the final image, regardless of what size you print at.




Jan 27, 2012 at 02:02 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #13 · A Digital OM?


wjmeyer wrote:
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist, like you, everytime I read OM-D I think of OMD, I should have found their actual video, but I'm really trying to forget the makeup and hairdo's of that era


nice! i've been thinking that everytime i read OM-D too.



Jan 27, 2012 at 02:06 PM
wjmeyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #14 · A Digital OM?


Maybe they can have OMD do a promo video for the OM-D


Jan 27, 2012 at 02:17 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #15 · A Digital OM?


HopeIsEternal wrote:
I really dislike this claim of "But unless you're viewing differing images at 100%, the per-pixel noise doesn't matter"
This might have been true in the Film days when the normal viewing medium was a fixed size print. But today, images are frequently viewed/used at 100% or close to it especially when performing image processing/editing/cropping functions.

If the claim were really true that per-pixel performance did not matter as much as finished print size, the manufacturers would be selling cameras labelled by the print size. But they don't. They sell them by how many megapixels they have. Consumers have a right to
...Show more

That's a straw-man argument. Yeah, you actually see it at 100% from time to time, but do you ever display it at 100%? Um....no. Do you honestly purchase new gear because it looks better to you while you're editing it? Even if it provides absolutely no benefit in the final image?

The output medium is still a size other than 100% pixel view, whether it be on screen slide show (usually 1980 pixels wide or so), web use (1000 pixels wide or lower), or print. In all three cases, you are going to smoosh the file, regardless of resolution, to a designated output size, and thus the higher resolution input will have each individual pixel make up a smaller part of that final image. If you're comparing cameras with different resolutions, and you're trying to make the same print, if they have the same per-pixel noise, the final print will have finer grained noise, that will be less apparent, with the higher MP image.

If you're doing, say, an HD slide show, and you reduce a 16 MP 5000 pixel wide image, to HD width, you're binning 2.6 pixels into one. If you are using a 10 MP image, at 4000 pixels wide, you're binning just about 2 pixels into one. The higher MP image can have 25% more noise at the pixel level and the exact same output will be seen on the screen.

In print, the same applies.


Edited on Jan 27, 2012 at 02:39 PM · View previous versions



Jan 27, 2012 at 02:34 PM
pingflood
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #16 · A Digital OM?


HopeIsEternal wrote:
If the claim were really true that per-pixel performance did not matter as much as finished print size


So this is what has become of us.



Jan 27, 2012 at 02:35 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #17 · A Digital OM?


Jman13 wrote:
That's a straw-man argument. Yeah, you actually see it at 100% from time to time, but do you ever display it at 100%? Um....no. Do you honestly purchase new gear because it looks better to you while you're editing it? Even if it provides absolutely no benefit in the final image?

The output medium is still a size other than 100% pixel view, whether it be on screen slide show (usually 1980 pixels wide or so), web use (1000 pixels wide or lower), or print. In all three cases, you are going to smoosh the file, regardless of resolution, to a
...Show more

The issue is that some users and uses do require an image to be interpolated up in size (not just down!) to such an extent that anything that will show up at 100% view will be easily seen in the print. The better the per pixel, 100% view, the more I know I can push the print up in size when needed.



Jan 27, 2012 at 05:00 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #18 · A Digital OM?


wjmeyer wrote:
Also, I found a link to one of the first

&feature=related" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">OMD videos


Love it.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Jan 27, 2012 at 05:02 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #19 · A Digital OM?


The issue is that some users and uses do require an image to be interpolated up in size (not just down!) to such an extent that anything that will show up at 100% view will be easily seen in the print. The better the per pixel, 100% view, the more I know I can push the print up in size when needed.

But it doesn't matter. We're comparing two different cameras here. Obviously, if a camera is better per pixel than another of the same resolution, it will be better in a larger print, but if you have a 12MP camera on one hand, and a 16MP camera on the other, but the 16MP camera is only 5% noisier at the pixel level, it will still produce a cleaner print at ANY size.

Let me see if I can make an analogy that will make this clear. My definition for noise in this analogy is simplistic, since noise is random, but it is valid for how noise will appear in print.

- Camera A produces files that are 6000x4000, or 24MP on the nose. We'll describe the noise by saying that it affects things about 5 pixels wide. (assume a 'grain' of noise 5 pixels wide).

- Camera B produces files that are 4500x3000, or 13.5 MP. Let's say this camera produces less noise than Camera A, but not orders of magnitude better. Say this noise is 4 pixels wide.

Now, pixel level noise on camera B is 20% better than camera A. That's a pretty big difference.

Let's print these images. Let's say you want to print a very large print, say, 60 inches wide.

Camera A will put 100 linear dots in each inch of print (6000 pixels/60 inches), and the width of each 'noise grain' in this example would then be 0.05 inches wide on the print

Camera B will put only 75 linear dots in each inch of print (4500 pixels/60 inches), so the width of each 'noise grain' for this print would be 4/75, or 0.053 inches wide on the print.

Now, Camera B, despite having 20% better noise control at the pixel level, will actually have slightly MORE visible noise on the print (albeit in this example, an imperceptible amount). These ratios will hold for any print size, large or small.


I think the easiest way to think about this is that when you are viewing images from two different cameras with different resolutions on screen at 100%, you are viewing them at different effective sizes, since the output of your monitor is a fixed DPI. The average monitor is between 72-96 dpi. When viewed at 100% on screen, if you are viewing a 12MP image and your monitor is 96 dpi, you are effectively viewing that image at a size of 44" wide. (4250 pixels wide at 96 dpi).

When you view, say, a 16MP image at 100%, you are effectively viewing that image at a size of 51" inches wide. If the noise appears identical at 100%, you can make the print 7" wider with the same visible noise with the 16MP image. It stands to reason that when printed at the same size, that noise gets magnified in the smaller image, or shrunk in the higher res image.



Jan 27, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #20 · A Digital OM?


sebboh wrote:
nice! i've been thinking that everytime i read OM-D too.




Well, I guess we've been effectively dated. I never had the hair or the makeup, but I should still have my 12" of Enola Gay...




Jan 27, 2012 at 05:48 PM
1       2       3              16              18              33       34       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              16              18              33       34       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account