The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I found lots of cameras to compare it with but no apples or oranges
Retirement tempting cameras abound at the minute, but now I have 15, 21, 40 and 70 Ltd's Pentax is winning in a logical way. Not that logic has ever been my strong point.
Hope all is well, with you and yours.
David
jonoslack
Active member
Absolutely - lots of interesting cameras - maybe you need the funny looking Pentax? (I think it looks pretty cool, but no EVF is a bit of a dropped bullock)I found lots of cameras to compare it with but no apples or oranges
Retirement tempting cameras abound at the minute, but now I have 15, 21, 40 and 70 Ltd's Pentax is winning in a logical way. Not that logic has ever been my strong point.
Hope all is well, with you and yours.
David
kuau
Workshop Member
So it looks like after you take away all the new cool stuff of the OMD, I wonder if IQ will be any better then a GH2, G3, GX1 at base ISO shooting RAW, I'm sure olympus jpeg engine will be much improved though.
I'm still looking forward to the new Fuji, I think this will be the Overall IQ champ for a 16mp mirror less camera.
I'm still looking forward to the new Fuji, I think this will be the Overall IQ champ for a 16mp mirror less camera.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
kwalsh
New member
I think all indications are "no" with the possible exception that they might use a weaker AA filter.
Of course the same as the most recent Panasonic cameras is still significantly better than all the existing Olympus cameras that use the old 12MP sensor.
And I suppose if you shoot primes in low light then IBIS with the newer sensors means lower ISO for better IQ in some shooting situations.
They are being coy about the sensor, they always are, but besides what appear to be a few misunderstandings along the way all bets (including DPR's) are on it being the GX1/G3 sensor with minor tweaks.
Ken
Yeah, pfft to the lack of experience you have with the K-5 apparently. Almost every K-5 owner that has other cameras too knows this, it's rather obvious, easy to prove and a reason (for those that need/want the DR) to get a K-5.
[]
DXo goes to the source- the sensor. Everything else is the software running on top. They do separate Pentax at ISO 3200 for some fudging on the data of thigh ISO on K-5 and also the Q, so they are not ignoring things like that.
I did not say they were cheating- just that they pick different tone curve shifts. DXo equalizes this for the comparison which is the rich thing to do. This argument was done and done, apparently it went through your head the explanation. I gave my explanation, pointed to DXo website's too which explains this rather well and quite frankly I think it should be somewhat obvious. I also demonstrated an example of this beyond the shadow of any doubt with the e-620 a while back, including step by step instructions and screen shots, using dcraw and encouraged everyone to *not believe me, but to do it and see for themselves.* In return from a select group of people like you I got a bunch of insults back and nonsense.
This is beyond proven, I don't need nor will I revisit it. What I do remember is you misreading the DXo chart. So whatever happened to that argument apparently is that you just can't accept the occlusion or you agree to differ. That's fine, but I am done with that.
- Raist
Not that I have to explain how you perceive how I spend my time to you, but at dpreview for the last months you have been the biggest poster at the Oly DSLR forum by far, and it's not sharing photographic gems. A select group of people get "annoyed" because they obviously choose so by clicking and reading threads that they claim bear no interest to them. Even putting the disclaimer that they can indeed choose to move on, doesn't seem to help these "victims."
Many other users have commended me on what I have written so whatever. Moreover, my history with Olympus posts dates back further than you, and you will see as I have said before, not many said much when I was writing a glowing review of the e-420. I think the Em5 is a great camera and now that- as I would do and I haven't changed- call it so- you call it an "occasional but rare lucid moments about how good it might be." This is nonsense.
And with this, this is my last reply to you here on getdpi.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
So there is then the Kodak sensor from all the rumored tests between Kodak and Olympus? Or similar the Foveon sensor? Or any other NON Panasonic sensor, as they are out of the contract and do no longer need to get Pana sensors?
?I am a bit disappointed that they do not manage to get another manufacturer for their sensors ....
Riley
New member
Im not aware of any 'misreading
you made consecutive statements going on for some weeks that the published ISO was wrong, and you used some hocus pocus math you dreamed up to correct what you saw was some misdeed
well to point out a few things in order of appearanceraist3d said:
1) at the time you said this you were 3 posts in front of me in 1022, presently the position is 80/76, Im the 4th top poster.
But then I do host Sunday Scapes and that makes around 30 of my posts a week.
IOW ... I do something..
2) I post at least one image a week on Sunday Scapes, presently my online gallery at dpr has 128 images in it,
yours OTOH has exactly zero.
3) an number of us have long been aware that you just post this stuff to agitate people in 1022
that is of course another version of what you said last time, just some hours agoraist3d said:
Riley
New member
my takeSo there is then the Kodak sensor from all the rumored tests between Kodak and Olympus? Or similar the Foveon sensor? Or any other NON Panasonic sensor, as they are out of the contract and do no longer need to get Pana sensors?
I am a bit disappointed that they do not manage to get another manufacturer for their sensors ....
its fabbed by Panasonic, it just isnt a sensor that Panasonic use
Ive suspected for some time the entire wiring geometry is different
certainly the colour filters on the bayer layer (and theyre bonded onto the sensor) are different, as is the AA filter
kwalsh
New member
So far it appears not this time around. Olympus specifically called it a "Live MOS" sensor which is a Panasonic tradename for their CMOS sensors. So it seems really likely this is a Panasonic sensor. Interpreting what they've said so far about DR and high ISO noise improvement over the EP3 it sounds a lot like the GX1/G3 sensor or a very close derivative.So there is then the Kodak sensor from all the rumored tests between Kodak and Olympus? Or similar the Foveon sensor? Or any other NON Panasonic sensor, as they are out of the contract and do no longer need to get Pana sensors?
There is probably a practicality issue to this. You want a lot of volume on a sensor. Those Sony APS-C sensors are all over the place because it is of benefit to both Sony and the people they sell them to because of the higher volume it generates. No one else is doing 4/3 sized sensors, so there isn't a sensor out there that Olympus can just buy. They would have to pay for an entirely new sensor and that might be prohibitive.
On the other hand, the OM-D is not a cheap camera. Panasonic makes a unique sensor for the GH2 - which isn't a particularly high volume camera - and the OM-D will cost even more than the GH2. So perhaps it is possible they could go to someone else.
Of course it is really to Panasonic's advantage to share volume with Olympus. So perhaps even though Olympus was "free" to pick someone else this time Panasonic made it worth their while to stay.
Finally, consider that the new Panasonic sensors are actually pretty good. The only thing out there substantially better (and then only in certain cases) are the Sony sensors. From a practical standpoint besides us fanatics probably the vast majority of the market isn't going to notice or care. I'm sure for a camera company fighting to survive a bit more margin or more competitive price is worth trading a bit more noise and a bit less DR than the very best on the market.
Ken
P.S. All that said, I'd really drool for a Sony m43 sensor! And pay a premium for it.
ggibson
Well-known member
Hey Ken, what do you think about the "Live Time" mode of the OM-D that lets you view a long exposure as it is being taken? Do you think this would be only possible with a digital sensor like the GH2 has? DPReview confirmed that the E-M5 sensor is a) not the same as the GH2's and b) not an oversized sensor. Those don't rule out the possibility that it is digital instead of analog though.
kwalsh
New member
I'm not sure how they are doing the "Live Time" and "Live Bulb" as there is more than one way to do that. But no, I'm fairly certain it can be done with either the "digital" GH line of sensors or the "analog" G/GF/EP line of sensors. Both sensor lines are CMOS, the "digital" line just has the ADCs on chip and the "analog" line has them off chip.
Really all CMOS sensors can do it in theory, it is probably being done with what is called "non-destructive read". That means they "read" the sensor with out "reseting" it. In CMOS "read" just means turning on the pixel amplifiers in order. A "read" in CMOS never actually clears the pixel of charge, that is a separate "reset" action performed by a different transistor than the "read" amplifier. This is different than CCD. In CCD "reading" actually removes the charge from the pixel.
Ken
Really all CMOS sensors can do it in theory, it is probably being done with what is called "non-destructive read". That means they "read" the sensor with out "reseting" it. In CMOS "read" just means turning on the pixel amplifiers in order. A "read" in CMOS never actually clears the pixel of charge, that is a separate "reset" action performed by a different transistor than the "read" amplifier. This is different than CCD. In CCD "reading" actually removes the charge from the pixel.
Ken
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I would be very surprised to see Olympus using anything other than Panasonic sensors for 4/3 and m4/3 as long as they are both parts of the consortium. Defining and designing two new lens mounts and everything around them in just a few years must have been a major investment and the exchange of technologies likewise significant. Both to protect themselves financially and to keep a good relationship, it's probably important for both parties to use each other's competence and technologies whenever possible. The little gain Olympus may or may not achieve by choosing another sensor supplier may backfire in the shape of a cooler working climate which in the long run could hurt compatibility between products and make m4/3 less attractive to photographers.
It's all politics, and this is even Japanese politics
It's all politics, and this is even Japanese politics
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
1. Kodak did, 5, 8 and 10MP (maybe that's the reason they went bankrupt
)2. Agree, and probably the other way around with Olympus technology.
Riley
New member
i would doubt that its a Sony,
perhaps momentarily against the common wisdom but I would expect it is far more likely to be Panasonic at its heart
What we have to understand is that developing sensors is very expensive, and I think thats why the relatively short life and low volume GH1&2 cameras were so pricey. That sensor was entirely new in every aspect, size, geometry, architecture, digital converter. The GH series contribute to a particular niche that Panasonic see as around 10-15% of their business, not enough to affect economies of scale, but enough to make them worthwhile as long as you can put up the $1800 introduction pricing scale.
I think we will find that what Olympus have been doing is choosing Panasonic sensors for which the lithography is already mapped out, that in itself is an expensive proposition, and it is likely helpful to Panasonic as it drives the volume of a particular shared sensor design up, further dividing the costs.
However beyond that are aspects of a sensor design that can be altered. We have seen consistently that Olympus have chosen slightly different pixel measures from Panasonic, whose own fabrication process allows them to implement pixel wiring in a two metal BEOL process therefore some principle features can be changed in pipeline and wiring. We saw this with the introduction and improvements in video over the long running 12 +/- Mp sensors.
So while the basis of a sensor can be the same to reduce costs, much of it can be customised to effect different views on the more subtle aspects of sensor design. If you saw the sensor as the heart of the imaging engine, you might find that various differences are not so difficult to implement, those of the AA filter, IR resistance, the richness or otherwise of colours on the bayer layer, the number of pipelines to push data throughput, rewiring to allow differences in exposure metering, in lifting contrast detect autofocus information. Of these things we are certain they differ both between manufacturers and generationally.
Two features they are locked into are the fact that its a piece of silicon with 12 or 16 mill holes, and the geometry of that pixel. Panasonics unique fabrication process enables many things to be changed and that has challenged the perception of the generational differences.
Last edited:
Yes, but Kodak stopped doing them in any volume. Also it begs the question too, how much volume they were getting out with just Olympus.1. Kodak did, 5, 8 and 10MP (maybe that's the reason they went bankrupt
True. Certainly the anti-duster came from Olympus.
- Raist