PDA

View Full Version : Olympus steps out the megapixel race


Dogcow
9th March 2009, 07:21 PM
At last! And it is Olympus who throws the towel in the ring.
In an interview with ZDNet (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-276512.html) Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, states that 12 megapixel is sufficient for 'mainstream use' and Olympus will step out the 'megapixel-race'. If you really want more you should step over to full-frame models.

What do you think: makes Olympus the right decision?

As far as I am concerned I think it is a wise step as cramping more pixels in the same sensor size will deteriorate quality (as seen with smaller camera's and cameraphones). And 12 MP is for my needs more than sufficient.

photo_owl
9th March 2009, 07:35 PM
I belive the corrected quote was if you want more than 20mp go FF.

Back in the early design phase the top DZ glass was designed with a resolution limit around 18 and most (inc some SHG) more like 16 - so there really isn't anything new here at all - only what people choose to interpret.

shenstone
9th March 2009, 10:34 PM
I guess this could suit me down to the ground - It would be nice to get back to how I was with film - I had a system that suited me and my style - compact, did the job and not a constant round of upgrades

Regards
Andy

Dicky
9th March 2009, 10:59 PM
so why doesnt Olympus get out of the silly micro 4thirds system and go for a full frame system to complement the four thirds we all use .perhaps one which will accept my OM lenses .. soon fulframe sensors with 20 + mega pixels will be comon and cheaper so why not get ahead of the game and abandon micro four thirds and go for full frame

shenstone
9th March 2009, 11:09 PM
so why doesnt Olympus get out of the silly micro 4thirds system and go for a full frame system to complement the four thirds we all use .perhaps one which will accept my OM lenses .. soon fulframe sensors with 20 + mega pixels will be comon and cheaper so why not get ahead of the game and abandon micro four thirds and go for full frame

That would require massive lens redevelopment and replacement

The only reason micro 4/3 works with the lenses is the same sensor size - imagine the adaptors to try and make your nice compact lenses attempt to work with a ff sensor

The only way they could do that would be to adopt someone elses fit in some leveraging deal or start all over again

Regards
Andy

photo_owl
10th March 2009, 08:51 AM
canon already have such a camera and it works fine with your OM glass - if it's so important to you I presume you have bought one?

If you haven't, you have answered your own question.

StephenL
10th March 2009, 10:04 AM
A wise, if very brave, move. Could be commercial suicide or it could be the first breath of fresh air that other manufacturers were hoping someone, not them, would be the first to state.

Wreckdiver
10th March 2009, 11:01 AM
so why doesnt Olympus get out of the silly micro 4thirds system and go for a full frame system to complement the four thirds we all use .perhaps one which will accept my OM lenses .. soon fulframe sensors with 20 + mega pixels will be comon and cheaper so why not get ahead of the game and abandon micro four thirds and go for full frame

I totally agree. I think Olymus needs to go Full Frame and develop a new set of lenses. After all, other manufactures have different lenses for different formats - Nikon have FX and DX lens ranges.

I wondered just how far Olympus could go with a small sensor size before noise became a serious problem. Seems with 12MP they have hit that barrier. The only way forward is Full Frame (or larger).

Steve

OlyPaul
10th March 2009, 11:58 AM
Olympus could bring out a seperate larger format range, (why stick to just 35mm, they did not when designing four thirds) to give them a advantage and a true two system range and forget compatability It would be the equivalent of MF and 35mm range in film days , after all "full Frame" is the new medium format of the digital world so you might as well better it if only by a small amount.

But as when the OM series was in its hayday they did not venture into MF, I do not think they will now possibly because of the R&D costs and the risk.

yorky
10th March 2009, 12:02 PM
Maybe redevelopment of the procsessing engine is the way forward! keep the 4/3rds and the sensor size, it works well for most of us but the noise level can be a problem. I suppose the increase over the 10.2 size to 12. whatever has got a different procsessing engine and when the E5 comes along there will be further devolpments along these lines. But full frame cameras cost and weigh more!

Ian
10th March 2009, 12:28 PM
At last! And it is Olympus who throws the towel in the ring.
In an interview with ZDNet (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-276512.html) Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, states that 12 megapixel is sufficient for 'mainstream use' and Olympus will step out the 'megapixel-race'. If you really want more you should step over to full-frame models.

What do you think: makes Olympus the right decision?

As far as I am concerned I think it is a wise step as cramping more pixels in the same sensor size will deteriorate quality (as seen with smaller camera's and cameraphones). And 12 MP is for my needs more than sufficient.

At Photokina last year, Olympus had a huge HP wide format Z-Series printer producing 44 inch prints taken live using an E-3 on the booth using a specially built set. The quality of the prints was really very good.

I'm sure there is a law of diminishing returns regarding the increase in pixel count. The new 12MP E-System models don't appear to produce anything but a very marginal improvement in resolution over the 10MP models, although noise management at high ISOs is much improved.

I've always said that all small sensor (APS-C, Sigma SD, Four Thirds, even the Leica M8 sensor size) are really the replacement for 35mm film. Full frame 135 format, like the Sony Alpha 900, Canon EOS 5D/1Ds, Nikon D700, D3, etc.) are the replacement for medium format film (Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya, Rolleiflex, etc.)

Ian

maccabeej
10th March 2009, 12:50 PM
Are we all concerned about the wrong things. Most cameras use a 14bit converter but unless we have the megabucks to keep upgrading few can do decent PP at anything other than 8 bit. Additionally we either print at 8bit or put them on websites probably with an 800pixel max size and only capable of displaying an rgb colour space. Perhaps when we have improved the display technology we can worry about more megapixels. Until then it would be good to use the dtat we have.
Jim:confused:

benvendetta
10th March 2009, 01:26 PM
I reckon that it is due solely to Oly going with the small 4/3 sensor that they are saying this. Note that none of the others are saying this, or are likely to in the near future as their non-FF sensors are larger and can accommodate more pixels (the sky is probably the limit with FF).
This puts Oly at the mercy of the great buying public, a large majority of which will continue to go for the cameras with the biggest numbers in the specs.

Dicky
10th March 2009, 01:41 PM
in its heyday (or just before :) ) olympus did have two systems 1/2 frame (4/3 rds) and full frame OM's.if they are gona go to the haassle of developeing new lenses (micro 4/3 rds ) they might as well do it right and go full frame after all they did make lenses to cover this size before (OM's )
" A good Big un always beats a good small un ":D

snaarman
10th March 2009, 01:56 PM
There's a lot of wisdom in this thread :):

Unless Olympus know some physics no-one else knows, then smaller sensors are always at a disadvantage. Having to use more amplification to get an image out of small pixels will result in more noise. This just gets worse if they try to jam 16Mpixels into a 4/3 sensor.

I am happy that 10 Mp and the Zuiko lenses are plenty good enough for A3 prints. Many of us chose the E400 + E510 because they are small and the optics are good. So Oly, don't go chasing megapixels and end up losing your way...

If for some reason I really need 24Mpixels or ISO12800 then I am going to have to get a larger heavier camera. However, that camera would then spend more time on the shelf and less time in my pocket.

Pete

edit: I agree with Dicky, if they are want to play with the big guns, then leave the E series as pocketable gems, and make a new non 4/3 Big Range :-)

Nick Temple-Fry
10th March 2009, 02:14 PM
But there remains the perception that more pixels means more quality, and I doubt that perception is going to go away even though 10-12 mp is more than enough for any practical reproduction purposes.

But this ignores the fact that it is the image that makes the photograph, not the ability to resolve miniscule detail.

Secondly I think a lot of the demand for more pixels comes from the habit of severely cropping images, rather than framing the picture at the time of capture. And a 24mp image can be cropped by half and still be 12mp. An awful convenient cover up for initial bad photography.

Nick

Ian
10th March 2009, 03:09 PM
Are we all concerned about the wrong things. Most cameras use a 14bit converter but unless we have the megabucks to keep upgrading few can do decent PP at anything other than 8 bit. Additionally we either print at 8bit or put them on websites probably with an 800pixel max size and only capable of displaying an rgb colour space. Perhaps when we have improved the display technology we can worry about more megapixels. Until then it would be good to use the dtat we have.
Jim:confused:

Most cameras use 12 bit A/D conversion, not 14 bit. I have said all along that you need a very high quality sensor to benefit from 14-bit conversion, and this seems to be borne out in technical reviews. In other words, 14 bit conversion from DSLR sensors smaller than 135 format full frame does not deliver a tangible benefit.

Ian

Ian
10th March 2009, 03:16 PM
There's a lot of wisdom in this thread :):

Unless Olympus know some physics no-one else knows, then smaller sensors are always at a disadvantage. Having to use more amplification to get an image out of small pixels will result in more noise. This just gets worse if they try to jam 16Mpixels into a 4/3 sensor.

I am happy that 10 Mp and the Zuiko lenses are plenty good enough for A3 prints. Many of us chose the E400 + E510 because they are small and the optics are good. So Oly, don't go chasing megapixels and end up losing your way...

If for some reason I really need 24Mpixels or ISO12800 then I am going to have to get a larger heavier camera. However, that camera would then spend more time on the shelf and less time in my pocket.

Pete

edit: I agree with Dicky, if they are want to play with the big guns, then leave the E series as pocketable gems, and make a new non 4/3 Big Range :-)

Canon and Nikon are clearly getting more quality out of sensors that have a similar pixel pitch to that of 12MP Four Thirds. That means Panasonic is still catching with its sensor technology. If you compare images shot with an E-330 (7.7MP) with an E-30 or E-620 (12MP) I doubt that many would prefer the E-330 image quality. That shows how far Panasonic has gone in improving both image quality and resolution in just three years.

Sony has just produced a bridge camera (HX1) with a 9MP CMOS sensor. This has a pixel pitch roughly equivalent to a 40MP Four Thirds sensor.

So I think 12MP will not be the limit for Four Thirds, whether we like it or not.

I'd also like to ask you all - how does the Four Thirds image quality you now get compare with 35mm film quality you used to (maybe still do) get?

Ian

Dick Bowman
10th March 2009, 03:33 PM
[... deleted ...]

I'd also like to ask you all - how does the Four Thirds image quality you now get compare with 35mm film quality you used to (maybe still do) get?

Ian

I'm happy enough with image quality.

Frankly I'm tired of all this harping on about pixel counts (and don't forget, it's the square root of the increase that tells you about the linear increment). Seems to come from that adolescent/journalist/stampcollecter mentality (just like "car xyz is better than car pqr because it can exceed the speed limit even more").

You just can't tell these numbwits that
(a) if something's good enough for purpose then it's good enough for purpose
(b) quite often a well-constructed item with a lower "specification" is a better deal than something that falls apart when you blow on it.

StephenL
10th March 2009, 03:55 PM
When I got it right with slides, film was good. However, in hindsight grain was always an issue though I didn't notice it then, only now when I'm re-visiting the slides. So in my mind digital is a whole lot better - I'm more than happy with the results I get from digital. Bad results are down to me, not the system. :o
Also, having stepped to Oly from Canon 5D some 18 months ago, I was surprised at how good the Four Thirds images are. Shooting both in Raw, I find that Olympus pics need far less pp than Canon did to achieve a comparable result. But then, I don't pixel-peep :D

... - how does the Four Thirds image quality you now get compare with 35mm film quality you used to (maybe still do) get?

Ian

snaarman
10th March 2009, 04:02 PM
I'd also like to ask you all - how does the Four Thirds image quality you now get compare with 35mm film quality you used to (maybe still do) get?

Ian

Its been a while, but Provia from my Nikon gear scanned in a Minolta slide scanner is about equal to my E510 with Digital Zuiko lenses. In fact the grain was usually the limiting factor. Well pleased with 10Mpixels personally.

Pete

yorky
10th March 2009, 04:22 PM
I personally am quite happy with he 4/3thirds, the optics are superb and I seldom go above A4 though A3 seems fine as well. Nevertheless, the race for higher value sensors will no doubt go on, no doubt Panasonic will be in the fore front of the race along with Sony. But at the end product, surely it the lens quality that counts.

photo_owl
10th March 2009, 04:59 PM
Canon and Nikon are clearly getting more quality out of sensors that have a similar pixel pitch to that of 12MP Four Thirds. That means Panasonic is still catching with its sensor technology. If you compare images shot with an E-330 (7.7MP) with an E-30 or E-620 (12MP) I doubt that many would prefer the E-330 image quality. That shows how far Panasonic has gone in improving both image quality and resolution in just three years.

Sony has just produced a bridge camera (HX1) with a 9MP CMOS sensor. This has a pixel pitch roughly equivalent to a 40MP Four Thirds sensor.

So I think 12MP will not be the limit for Four Thirds, whether we like it or not.

I'd also like to ask you all - how does the Four Thirds image quality you now get compare with 35mm film quality you used to (maybe still do) get?

Ian

Last part first - it exceeds it.

In spades.

ironically the most telling area is in ISO performance - despite which the current sensors clearly underperform their inherent capabilities as you have also highlighted. the pivot point was at least one generation of E ago, and probably 2.

Olympus's statement at PMA was clearly both a repsonse to some open critisism and a positioning statement for the next level of releases. Whilst I wouldn't be surprised to see a 15mp E4 I would be very surprised if it didn't have a significant step forward in this area (which all other things being equal makes 12mp more likely as the next step).

benvendetta
10th March 2009, 05:02 PM
I am just as happy with my digital A3 prints as I was with those I was getting with my old OMs and Nikon film cameras. And of course producing them is soooo much easier. But with slides there is no direct comparison unless you scan and then print them.
Speaking of slides, these were/are the only true medium for judging photographic ability. None of this post processing stuff, as apart from masking with little bits of tin foil there is absolutely nothing you can do once you have taken the roll of slide film. Yes, I know that you can change development time but this will affect the whole roll, not just one image.
Slides still rule! ;)

mike_j
10th March 2009, 05:22 PM
I have just been reading an article in The Instititute of Engineering and Technology house magazine about computational photography. It's quite long but basically it argues that present camera systems do not extract much of the information available from the light reaching them. By using various techniques such as microlens arrays and multiple aperture holes in the lens or in a plate near the sensor it is possible to record an image which contains additional information. From this it is possible to play such tricks as choosing the point of focus and depth of field after you have taken the picture. Other techniques manipulating the exposure by taking a series of very fast subexposures to build up the required exposure time can eliminate blurring.

At present these systems degrade the finished product but with more pixels costing less all the time there will headroom to permit this. Beyond that the nature of photography will change.

It's foolish for Olympus to say "here we stop". Brother - you ain't seen nothing yet!

Full article at http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0904/recapture-moment-0904.cfm

Invicta
10th March 2009, 05:34 PM
Interesting interview that can be taken either way

This qoute sounds interesting:

Instead, Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting, he said.

If Oly have some new technology in R&D to address the dynamic range issue then the next generation of the E-series will be interesting to see.

Dicky
10th March 2009, 06:59 PM
I'd also like to ask you all - how does the Four Thirds image quality you now get compare with 35mm film quality you used to (maybe still do) get?

Ian[/QUOTE]

Well i think its fair to say that my 35mm colour slides (kodachromes and Fujichromes ) blow digital into the weeds on all fronts accept ..cost ,POST PRODUCTION(esp;converging verticals)and cloneing things out of the image ....and the main reason i went digital .the ability to see the image imeadiately.... and therfore correct any flaws there and then.....also MY 5"x4" slides and 6x6 slides are even better :D
if only i could afford the time and cost :(

Ian
10th March 2009, 07:07 PM
I have just been reading an article in The Instititute of Engineering and Technology house magazine about computational photography. It's quite long but basically it argues that present camera systems do not extract much of the information available from the light reaching them. By using various techniques such as microlens arrays and multiple aperture holes in the lens or in a plate near the sensor it is possible to record an image which contains additional information. From this it is possible to play such tricks as choosing the point of focus and depth of field after you have taken the picture. Other techniques manipulating the exposure by taking a series of very fast subexposures to build up the required exposure time can eliminate blurring.

At present these systems degrade the finished product but with more pixels costing less all the time there will headroom to permit this. Beyond that the nature of photography will change.

It's foolish for Olympus to say "here we stop". Brother - you ain't seen nothing yet!

Full article at http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0904/recapture-moment-0904.cfm

The currently mass produced image sensor bae materials are not exotic. CCD and MOS-type semiconductors don't represent the highest performance photo-sensitive materials for digital image. But they are cheap and relatively easy to use by manufacturers, and they work pretty well.

I think Olympus us basically saying that for them, an improvement in areas that they know they are less competitive (dynamic range and high ISO noise) must be the primary focus now that 12MP has been achieved.

I mean, how many people here really MUST have more than 12 megapixels?

16-bit TIFFs will be 72MB from a full frame...

Ian

Ian
10th March 2009, 07:10 PM
I'd also like to ask you all - how does the Four Thirds image quality you now get compare with 35mm film quality you used to (maybe still do) get?

Ian

Well i think its fair to say that my 35mm colour slides (kodachromes and Fujichromes ) blow digital into the weeds on all fronts accept ..cost ,POST PRODUCTION(esp;converging verticals)and cloneing things out of the image ....and the main reason i went digital .the ability to see the image imeadiately.... and therfore correct any flaws there and then.....also MY 5"x4" slides and 6x6 slides are even better :D
if only i could afford the time and cost :([/QUOTE]

Well, OK - I'm sure you are being sincere. But that's not my personal experience, though I tended to use higher-speed slide film that was limited by graininess. I hardly ever used 25 ASA Kodachrome, for example. I certainly feel colour is more realistic with digital. I do miss the huge latitude of colour negative, but not the softness and colour I was getting.

Ian

Wreckdiver
10th March 2009, 07:16 PM
Personally, I would love to see an Olympus FF DSLR with no more than 10-12MP but with a noise figure to blow the competition away and ISO settings down to 25 ISO.

Steve

Rod Souter
11th March 2009, 10:04 PM
An interesting read on FF.

http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html

Rod

Naughty Nigel
15th July 2009, 10:09 AM
Personally I very much welcome this statement from Olympus.

I am still very happy using my 4.9 MP E1, which not only produces excellent picture quality, but also produces manageable file sizes which can be enlarged to A3 without any noticeable loss of quality.

I also use a Canon G9, which is super little camera, but in my view would have been ten times better with a lower pixel count. Why on earth does anyone 'need' 12 MP or more from a compact? How many compact users regularly print to A2 size or beyond, and if not, why do they 'need' a 12 MP camera?

A few months ago I posted a poll on the AP Forum, specifically asking whether members were happy with the resolution of their present cameras, or whether they wanted more pixels. I also asked whether noise was more important to them than pixel count, and asked what pixel count members would look for in their 'ideal' camera. Significantly, this was just after Canon had announced its new G10.

The results were quite interesting, and showed that most photographers would be happy with 8 or 10 MP, whilst fewer wanted 12 MP or more.

The results also showed that photographers valued noise and picture quality more highly than resolution.

IMV, excessive pixel count is a pain. I shoot almost exclusively in RAW, so big files take much longer to process, and need much more storage space.

I am sure that Olympus will increase pixel count when it can be achieved without sacrificing noise, but for now I would far rather that they (and other camera manufacturers) concentrate on reducing noise levels.

michaelavis
15th July 2009, 04:41 PM
I welcome it too, it makes total sense if they can harness that 12MP sensor to the brilliant Olympus optics and produce a cropped frame system with the best picture quality (i.e. noticeably lower noise and higher dynamic range than we have today) that
covers >90% of users real needs, rather than wants.

For applications where the higher resolution is needed or at least a significant advantage, more MP and FF would lead the way but I would have thought at some penalty compared to the Oly 4/3 system when it comes to size, weight and price.

All that said I reckon it's a big market risk for Oly, it may simply not have the brand strength to withstand a specification difference which for many people is the 3rd thing they look at after brand and price. How many people do you see in the street or at gatherings sporting entry level Canon and Nikon dSLRs with kits lenses probably set to auto mode? Are these the "AP photographers" who said they didn't want more MP? I don't tend to think so and the sheer weight of numbers of that type of consumer drives volume which in this market, just like so many others, is king.

Naughty Nigel
15th July 2009, 05:19 PM
Perhaps the answer is for Olympus to find some worthwhile selling points other than pixel count.

Few people buy cars based on their top speed any more, and engine power is of little interest to most buyers. Meanwhile, price, MPG, safety, tax bands, serving costs and reliability are very much in people's minds.

Nova Invicta
22nd July 2009, 10:41 PM
Even one of the top engineers at Canon has stated in a paper that the MP war is more about marketing than practical requirement. He goes on to state that colour space is where the real improvements can still be made. To give a more practical example of this the British Society of Cinematographers recently tested the top film & HD cameras and found some startling results. The camera with the best theoretical sensor size did not produce the best results (it was 4K) but a lowly 1K camera produced some of the best results on the largest screen at NFT1 on the South bank in London keep in mind these cameras are taking 24 / 25FPS so a lot of processing is required. The best cameras had 2K sensors and their colour emulation matched film a medium we have been used to for over a 100 years. Equally with the advent of digital projection the colour space conversion can make a huge difference to the finished projected image so far from being laggards the fact that Olympus make dedicated digital lenses and that they are more concerned with the software to render the images is to be appaulded.

Naughty Nigel
24th July 2009, 11:05 AM
Even one of the top engineers at Canon has stated in a paper that the MP war is more about marketing than practical requirement.

........ And of course Canon knows that it can win the war because it is using larger sensors than anyone else, (certainly larger than Olympus), and has a huge R&D budget to throw around.

Sadly, the average camera buyer does't know enough about the subject to see through the marketing hype, and is therefore easily persuaded that more pixels must be better.

Nova Invicta
11th August 2009, 04:35 PM
Another note on this subject. Olympus started down the right road by making near telecentric lenses that mitigate light scatter on the cmos chip and by making these lenses with a higher contrast ratio / MTF reading designed for digital capture. There is likely improvements still in this area in the future and as previously stated colour bit depth / colour space conversion through software can also render improvements.

Zuiko
11th August 2009, 10:27 PM
Maybe Olympus should promote the quality of their lenses more in advertising. How about:-

"Have you got the bottle to rely on lenses designed for film for your digital images? Or do you need the true quality only Zuiko designed for digital lenses can deliver? Never mind the pixels, how good is your glass?

Olympus digital Zuikos - light years ahead!"

Makonde
19th August 2009, 07:52 PM
Canon's G11 is stepping out of the megapixel race too, I see..... dpreview: "The G11 replaces the G10's 14.7MP sensor with what it describes as a high sensitivity 10 MP CCD"

Naughty Nigel
19th August 2009, 10:08 PM
Canon's G11 is stepping out of the megapixel race too, I see..... dpreview: "The G11 replaces the G10's 14.7MP sensor with what it describes as a high sensitivity 10 MP CCD"

You beat me to it.

To quote Warehouse Express:

Featuring an improved dynamic range, the Canon G11 has a new Dual Anti-Noise System which combines the 10 megapixel image sensor with DIGIC 4 image processing technology to provide better image quality and improved noise performance by up to 2 stops - when compared with the Canon G10. Whilst a lower number of megapixels than the G10, this in fact means that the Canon G11 delivers even better image quality.

I just wonder how the young lads working in Jessies or Dixons on a Saturday will sell their wares now?

TBH, I will probably buy one myself. I have a G9, which is an excellent camera, but is too noisy. Thank goodness the manufacturers have seen sense at last.

Nova Invicta
24th October 2009, 09:55 PM
All three of Canon cameras capable of 1080P video (EOS-1D MKIV 18MP, EOS-5D MKII 24.1MP, EOS-7D 16.1MP) have 14Bit A/D converters. Each also has a different sensor keeping the order above they are APS-H, Full Frame, APS-C and they have ISO 100-12700 (EOS-1D MKIV) and ISO 100-6400.

If Olympus steps into the DSLR HD video areana in 2010 they almost certainly will need to be around 14MP and have an improved ISO or risk noise in the shadow areas or clipping in the highlights. If they were smart film emulation would set them apart from Canon & Nikon both of whos cameras have artefacts relating to the use of rolling shutters and the adoption of H.264

Solar
26th October 2009, 06:33 PM
All three of Canon cameras capable of 1080P video (EOS-1D MKIV 18MP, EOS-5D MKII 24.1MP, EOS-7D 16.1MP) have 14Bit A/D converters. Each also has a different sensor keeping the order above they are APS-H, Full Frame, APS-C and they have ISO 100-12700 (EOS-1D MKIV) and ISO 100-6400.

If Olympus steps into the DSLR HD video areana in 2010 they almost certainly will need to be around 14MP and have an improved ISO or risk noise in the shadow areas or clipping in the highlights. If they were smart film emulation would set them apart from Canon & Nikon both of whos cameras have artefacts relating to the use of rolling shutters and the adoption of H.264

Yeah I'd love to see Oly have a wide range of "art filters" that emulate film. Probably many professionals would buy into Oly if for no other reason but the nostalgia. Kinda looks like Oly is going in that direction anyway, with art filters and all.

photo_owl
26th October 2009, 06:40 PM
Yeah I'd love to see Oly have a wide range of "art filters" that emulate film. Probably many professionals would buy into Oly if for no other reason but the nostalgia. Kinda looks like Oly is going in that direction anyway, with art filters and all.

you can download just about every possible film equivilant preset and apply them to your raw file already - nostalgia aside I can't say I use them despite having a huge number of them because I always find myself 'fiddling' and 'improving' the results!