Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Miles Bader wrote:
Kennedy McEwen writes:
They have made no attempt to disguise the fact that their business
model has been "cheap and cheerful" for the past 25 years, and they
have been very successful in leveraging that, and more strength to
them!

Still, I think the lament of many on a group like this is that back in
the day, companies like Olympus (and Pentax) managed to offer a very
appealing mixture of relatively cheap, small and light, but _also_ very
high quality (not just in terms of pictures either, those cameras were
very nicely built, and just felt _good_).

I think there's a perception that the 4/3 stuff is a sign that they've
ditched "high quality" as a goal.

That depends on what your notion of high quality is. They can
assuredly make the highest quality 4/3 system if they want. They will
never match the highest quality FF system.


It depends on what the final product looks like if it's high quality or
not. As I posted, I've got 11X14 prints from both an E1 and a "late"
canon APS-c camera and at that print size, they are both "high quality".
If I can't see any improvement in the final product, how is it going to
be -higher quality-? As the sensors improve, this difference will be
even smaller.

No. As the smaller sensors improve in S/N, so will the larger. The gap
will remain.

Further, cropability is of course another advantage of the FF sourced
image for a give end print size.

Now I'm NOT talking about viewing images at the pixel
level. If you enjoy that, no argument you need to be using a LARGE
sensor to play that techie game.

Detailed macro shots always benefit from good pixel level detail.

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Miles Bader wrote:
Kennedy McEwen writes:
They have made no attempt to disguise the fact that their business
model has been "cheap and cheerful" for the past 25 years, and they
have been very successful in leveraging that, and more strength to
them!

Still, I think the lament of many on a group like this is that back in
the day, companies like Olympus (and Pentax) managed to offer a very
appealing mixture of relatively cheap, small and light, but _also_ very
high quality (not just in terms of pictures either, those cameras were
very nicely built, and just felt _good_).

I think there's a perception that the 4/3 stuff is a sign that they've
ditched "high quality" as a goal.

That depends on what your notion of high quality is. They can
assuredly make the highest quality 4/3 system if they want. They
will never match the highest quality FF system.


It depends on what the final product looks like if it's high quality
or not. As I posted, I've got 11X14 prints from both an E1 and a
"late" canon APS-c camera and at that print size, they are both "high
quality". If I can't see any improvement in the final product, how is
it going to be -higher quality-? As the sensors improve, this
difference will be even smaller.

No. As the smaller sensors improve in S/N, so will the larger. The gap
will remain.


You're completely missing the point. There is ONLY so much information
that can be put into a 11X14 print. At some point you're not going to
improve or see anything, unless you go to a larger print size. It's why
the non-sense of looking for pixel level noise on a 10MP+ image is
non-sense, you'll never see it other than on a computer monitor blown up
so big you can't even tell what you're looking at.

This pixel level viewing was an issue when we were talking about 1-2MP
cameras, it's not now. It's also why as sensors improve, going to the
larger sizes shows diminishing returns, the "Gap" does not stay the same.

That is EXACTLY what happened with film and why you don't see people
using 8X10 cameras anymore. There isn't a reason for a "sensor" that
large with modern film. The only reason people use them today is for the
large negative for alternative processes.



Further, cropability is of course another advantage of the FF sourced
image for a give end print size.

So are you saying you regularly crop 50% of your images to print them?



Now I'm NOT talking about viewing images at the pixel level. If you
enjoy that, no argument you need to be using a LARGE sensor to play
that techie game.

Detailed macro shots always benefit from good pixel level detail.

?? not if they are printed mostly uncropped. You NEVER see pixel level
details in a print of normal size. Most printer drivers completely
ignore any information beyond the native ppi for my canon that is 600.
There really isn't any even technical purpose in feeding it more and
honestly, 300ppi or so is about where it stops being any visible
difference at all. All you're doing at that point is dealing with and
storing larger files.

And again, for playing the pixel peeper tech game, I don't argue a
bigger sensor is better. And if this is what some people want to
consider "High quality" is looking at pixels, not going to say they
don't have a right to. But to dismiss a camera that can produce
wonderful 11X14 prints as not being "high quality" is absurd.

Stephanie

wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

No. As the smaller sensors improve in S/N, so will the larger. The
gap will remain.


You're completely missing the point.

Hardly.

1. Cropping.
2. Noise.
3. Sampling.

There is ONLY so much information
that can be put into a 11X14 print. At some point you're not going to
improve or see anything, unless you go to a larger print size. It's why
the non-sense of looking for pixel level noise on a 10MP+ image is
non-sense, you'll never see it other than on a computer monitor blown up
so big you can't even tell what you're looking at.

I print often at 18x12 (at home) and larger from the lab occasionally.
My real world, you see. If I could find some good 24 x 16 stock (at a
good price) I'd be printing 22.5 x 15 just as regularly (25.5 x 17 paper
would be perfect, actually).

This pixel level viewing was an issue when we were talking about 1-2MP
cameras, it's not now. It's also why as sensors improve, going to the
larger sizes shows diminishing returns, the "Gap" does not stay the same.

That is EXACTLY what happened with film and why you don't see people
using 8X10 cameras anymore. There isn't a reason for a "sensor" that
large with modern film. The only reason people use them today is for the
large negative for alternative processes.

I'm sure those pros with Hassy 645 39Mpix (H3) cameras will be
devastated by your opinion. Not to mention the 50 Mpix.




Further, cropability is of course another advantage of the FF sourced
image for a give end print size.

So are you saying you regularly crop 50% of your images to print them?

Often enough, if not regularly - and see above for print sizes.




Now I'm NOT talking about viewing images at the pixel level. If you
enjoy that, no argument you need to be using a LARGE sensor to play
that techie game.

Detailed macro shots always benefit from good pixel level detail.

?? not if they are printed mostly uncropped. You NEVER see pixel level
details in a print of normal size. Most printer drivers completely
ignore any information beyond the native ppi for my canon that is 600.
There really isn't any even technical purpose in feeding it more and
honestly, 300ppi or so is about where it stops being any visible
difference at all. All you're doing at that point is dealing with and
storing larger files.

And again, for playing the pixel peeper tech game, I don't argue a
bigger sensor is better.

You certainly did before when you stated that smaller sensors were
"improving" while ignoring that larger sensors are doing the same. Of
course now that that awfully real physics issue gets in the way, you
change your tune.

And if this is what some people want to
consider "High quality" is looking at pixels, not going to say they
don't have a right to. But to dismiss a camera that can produce
wonderful 11X14 prints as not being "high quality" is absurd.

Nobody did. OTOH, considering a larger sensor to have no useful
advantage over a smaller sensor is nothing short of defending lower
quality 'cause you don't have the larger sensor. You might as well get
a P&S sized sensor by your logic.

Further, one should (once the archive is done) edit the full size image
for all qualitative changes before resizing to print. If you don't
think this affects the tonal/colour gradients (esp. in smooth colour
areas) and fine print detail you are quite mistaken. And from there, of
course, the issue of signal/noise qualities come around all over again.

" writes:
I think there's a perception that the 4/3 stuff is a sign that they've
ditched "high quality" as a goal.

So I assume you have used one? Or are you just repeating a perception?

No, the point is that their choice of formats adds to that _perception_,
when people already bitch about APS-C quality at high-ISO. I'm not
commenting on the actual image quality.

quality but I don't think when you compare models at the same price
point they feel cheap compared to their competition.

My point about 4/3 above was about perception of Oly's goals w/r/t image
quality, not about build quality.

I've never used a modern Olympus, just handled them in the store. They
seem to be built OK, at least by modern standards. The old OM cameras
were of course much nicer feeling, but I guess that's a general trend
with modern cameras, not anything to do with Oly in particular.

-Miles

--
Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a
single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:11:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


I print often at 18x12 (at home) and larger from the lab occasionally.
My real world, you see. If I could find some good 24 x 16 stock (at a
good price) I'd be printing 22.5 x 15 just as regularly (25.5 x 17 paper
would be perfect, actually).

You can print that large using nothing but a 6 megapixel camera IF YOU ARE
A WORTHWHILE PHOTOGRAPHER TO BEGIN WITH. 110ppi is plenty enough
information to carry any subject worth displaying. Some careful upsampling,
a minor Fourier transform to tighten up the miniscule 100th-of-an-inch soft
edges, and it's good to go. As long as the subject is worth looking at then
nobody is ever going to look for pixels and minute details. If people are
looking at the details and pixels in your image instead of the subject
itself then you've obviously missed having any talent at all when it comes
to photography. Considering how important all this is to you, I'll take
these over-the-top technical requirements of yours as self-evident proof
that your photography royally sucks. There can be no other reason.

Miles Bader wrote:
" writes:
I think there's a perception that the 4/3 stuff is a sign that they've
ditched "high quality" as a goal.
So I assume you have used one? Or are you just repeating a perception?

No, the point is that their choice of formats adds to that _perception_,
when people already bitch about APS-C quality at high-ISO. I'm not
commenting on the actual image quality.

You must be talking about pixel level noise?


quality but I don't think when you compare models at the same price
point they feel cheap compared to their competition.

My point about 4/3 above was about perception of Oly's goals w/r/t image
quality, not about build quality.

I've never used a modern Olympus, just handled them in the store. They
seem to be built OK, at least by modern standards. The old OM cameras
were of course much nicer feeling, but I guess that's a general trend
with modern cameras, not anything to do with Oly in particular.



The E1 feels VERY well built, I'd say almost as nice as an OM-2n was.
The smaller ones aren't as nice for sure. I think a lot of the
"perception" came from the early models using that kodak sensor. I love
the color it produced but was noisy over 400 ISO. I also feel the optics
are very good at their price points. I'm sure a $$$$ full frame canon
and L glass at high ISO would be nicer but then we aren't comparing
apples and oranges..

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:


Nobody did. OTOH, considering a larger sensor to have no useful
advantage over a smaller sensor is nothing short of defending lower
quality 'cause you don't have the larger sensor. You might as well get
a P&S sized sensor by your logic.

If I wanted a "larger sensor" I can just go shoot some 6X9 film and have
it scanned. Again in the print sizes most people make, 11X14 and
smaller, I just can't see any difference but in larger sizes I can if
you inspect them up close. Sure if your doing 50% crops at 18X12 (kinda
a strange size..) maybe YOU do need a big sensor? I don't buy it's the
only way to make "high quality" prints.

And lets not be absurd here, of course a P&S sensor is way too small to
be in consideration here. When you factor in cropping an APS-c sensor to
fit the normal format picture frames (8X10), a 4/3 sensor usuable area
isn't that much smaller.



Further, one should (once the archive is done) edit the full size image
for all qualitative changes before resizing to print. If you don't
think this affects the tonal/colour gradients (esp. in smooth colour
areas) and fine print detail you are quite mistaken. And from there, of
course, the issue of signal/noise qualities come around all over again.


I guess I haven't seen this and yes I have worked with drum scanned 6X9
and 4X5 negatives so have worked from much larger files that what you're
talking about.

Stephanie

Truth Be Told wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:11:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I print often at 18x12 (at home) and larger from the lab occasionally.
My real world, you see. If I could find some good 24 x 16 stock (at a
good price) I'd be printing 22.5 x 15 just as regularly (25.5 x 17 paper
would be perfect, actually).

You can print that large using nothing but a 6 megapixel camera IF YOU ARE
A WORTHWHILE PHOTOGRAPHER TO BEGIN WITH. 110ppi is plenty enough
information to carry any subject worth displaying. Some careful upsampling,
a minor Fourier transform to tighten up the miniscule 100th-of-an-inch soft
edges, and it's good to go. As long as the subject is worth looking at then
nobody is ever going to look for pixels and minute details. If people are
looking at the details and pixels in your image instead of the subject
itself then you've obviously missed having any talent at all when it comes
to photography. Considering how important all this is to you, I'll take
these over-the-top technical requirements of yours as self-evident proof
that your photography royally sucks. There can be no other reason.



I wouldn't be quite so... honest .... but that was kinda my point.

And now that the smaller sensors have gone past 10MP, this size
shouldn't be a problem at all. Now if someone was making 20X30 prints to
be viewed up close, maybe I could see it but IMHO I get confused about
this obsession people have with making giant prints to begin with. The
only image I have over that size of my own was shot with a 35mm film
camera using kodak HIE IR film that is a grainy mess but looks really
cool at a normal viewing distance. I never enlarged my 4X5 stuff over
11X14. If a photograph is good, it doesn't have to rely on being GIANT
to be impressive.

I can see people wanting to use their 35mm optics and especially the
wide angle stuff wanting a larger sensor but are the canon wide lenses
really THAT good anyway?

Stephanie

In message , Alan Browne
writes
Miles Bader wrote:
Kennedy McEwen writes:
They have made no attempt to disguise the fact that their business
model has been "cheap and cheerful" for the past 25 years, and they
have been very successful in leveraging that, and more strength to
them!
Still, I think the lament of many on a group like this is that back
in
the day, companies like Olympus (and Pentax) managed to offer a very
appealing mixture of relatively cheap, small and light, but _also_ very
high quality (not just in terms of pictures either, those cameras were
very nicely built, and just felt _good_).
I think there's a perception that the 4/3 stuff is a sign that
they've
ditched "high quality" as a goal.

That depends on what your notion of high quality is. They can
assuredly make the highest quality 4/3 system if they want. They will
never match the highest quality FF system. For that, they've lost the
opportunity to retain and gain the pickiest amateurs and pros.

If that is the niche they are comfortable in, so be it.

I think they will disappear. The reason is the market. I have seen it in
other non-photographic areas.

The really cheap stuff (in this case the low end P&S) survives and the
high end Nikon/Canon survives. What goes is the middle ground.

In photography both Nikon and Canon have DSLR's that go all the way down
to "cheap" and "entry level" with the promise that you can eventually up
grade the body and lenses to real pro stuff.

I know.... "upgrade the body and lenses" means a whole new camera but
you don't have to do both at the same time (or so I tell the wife :-)

Actually making it even more complex are the camera phones. I think the
low and medium end of the P&S market will loose out over time (5-10
years?) to the camera-phones

The high end P&S will always be around for the "final backup" and purse
or "pocket camera" for the pro's

However as I said I think the medium and low end DSLR camera makers
will go and you will have a few large companies with a range from high
end pro to entry level. Ie Nikon and Canon.

The Medium format is also struggling. It always was [comparatively] a
niche market due to cost. The top end Nikon and Canons are nibbling at
the MF market. All it needs is a 36-40MP DSLR and I think the MF will
also go.

Given that only a decade ago a Pro digital camera was 2MP and now it is
12-25MP I think the medium format will also fade out over the next
decade.

So by 2020 Camera-phones replace most (if not all) P&S
DSLR's come down to a couple of major manufacturers aperture from nich
market players.
MF disappears or is well on the way out.

Of course I could be completely wrong and 126 film makes a comeback. :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Truth Be Told wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:11:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


I print often at 18x12 (at home) and larger from the lab
occasionally. My real world, you see. If I could find some good 24
x 16 stock (at a good price) I'd be printing 22.5 x 15 just as
regularly (25.5 x 17 paper would be perfect, actually).

You can print that large using nothing but a 6 megapixel camera IF
YOU ARE A WORTHWHILE PHOTOGRAPHER TO BEGIN WITH. 110ppi is plenty
enough information to carry any subject worth displaying. Some
careful upsampling, a minor Fourier transform to tighten up the
miniscule 100th-of-an-inch soft edges, and it's good to go. As long
as the subject is worth looking at then nobody is ever going to look
for pixels and minute details. If people are looking at the details
and pixels in your image instead of the subject itself then you've
obviously missed having any talent at all when it comes to
photography. Considering how important all this is to you, I'll take
these over-the-top technical requirements of yours as self-evident
proof that your photography royally sucks. There can be no other
reason.

So where are your 6 megapixel 24x16s on display?