Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Halaking, Apr 8, 2015.
no real surprise here...
Shame they didn't shoot the 40mp mode...
I imagine that would require a major departure from their methodology, since what they're primarily focused on testing is the sensor, while the high-resolution mode is primarily a software trick.
Ouch. I mentioned this in the thread on the new sony 4/3 sensor, but there's hope in that new 20MP sensor in an EM1-ii. If Sony stuck the same year old technology that they have in the RX100iii in the new sensor, the new sensor should very easily outperform the current EM-5/EM-1/EM-5ii iteration.
See here: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...rsus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III___1006_957
Remembering that the RX100iii is a 20MP 1" sensor, which is equivalent to around a 34MP 4/3 sensor in terms of pixel density... scaling that 20MP sensor up to 4/3 would get it a lot closer to the A6000.
All hail Sony, lord of the sensor makers, bless us with your pixelly appendage
Can't imagine a 20 MP sensor making a noticeable difference to owners. In the showroom, sure.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The 1" 20MP RX100iii sensor is competitive with the 16MP 4/3 EM-5ii sensor. It shouldn't be. With a 2.4 micron pixel pitch (if a 4/3 sensor had that same pixel pitch, it would be 34MP), the 16MP EM-5ii should blow it away in all categories.
If Sony has taken the RX100iii BSI sensor tech and scaled it up to 4/3, the new 4/3 Sony sensor will undoubtedly perform much, much better than the current EM-5ii offering this thread is in reference to.
In other words, the 4 extra megapixels are irrelevant, what's hopeful is the fact that Sony has released a new 4/3 sensor. If they're using the tech they've shown in other sensors, the new 4/3 sensor should be greatly improved.
So my lowly E-PM2 is still the M43 low light king according to DXO!
Sure, but sensor performance limits rarely impact final images and the speed of improvement is like watching paint dry.
I'm way past caring about watching numbers inch up a wall over a five year period.
You are probably right from a practical sense, but u43 needs to compete with other systems, most of which (Samsung & Sony in particular) are offering newer sensors with better performance in terms of resolution and noise. The next round of u43 cameras needs to move up to stay competitive, even if for most of us the improvements are not going to make a significant difference to the results. Sounds mad, but that's progress!
Yes but the problem with "new Sony 20mp senzor" is that it doesnt have AF for PD-AF for 4/3 lens ( I speak as a user and owner EM1 ) - or it will ??
The relationship between base sensor and PDAF photosite presence is unclear. Panasonic make the sensor in the E-M1, which is the same base sensor as Panasonic's other latest 16 MP offerings in most respects but with PDAF photosites added somehow. Olympus may well request the same from Sony.
Well... E-M1mk2 is rumored to have a new, bigger sensor. No one (?) knows whose sensor it will be but one thing is certain: it will have fast focusing with 4/3 lenses as well (whether it's PDAF or CDAF). I hope they use Sony's sensor and have managed to top Panasonics CAF+(tracking) with CDAF only but I wouldn't hold my breath...
Are you suggesting the sensor will be physically larger than the traditional size (roughly 17.3 x 13mm)? That strikes me as an odd direction to take the system in.
Kinda points out the silliness of attaching importance to these DXOMark scores, particularly for a camera that's using a sensor that is essentially unchanged.
The only way a "bigger" sensor would make sense is if it is multi-aspect. I saw an interesting proposal for a circular sensor. (Then you could shoot portrait or landscape, or square, without moving the camera. And with a raw file, you could even pick the aspect ratio after shooting and rotate the image without cropping.)
Otherwise, you can't use of the current m4/3 lenses, and there's limited upside for Olympus to try to create a whole new array of lenses.
But I am jealous of the Sony's a7s with a theoretical ISO of 409600. (Even with a smaller pixel pitch, I'd hope we could at least get a 102400 with 12800 or 25600 being mostly usable.)
I suspect that "bigger" was used in the sense of more MP and not physical dimensions, but I'm obviously second-guessing someone else.
More than anything, it's confirmation that it's the same sensor. There's going to be some variance there...
Depends what you're shooting. For example, if you're trying to capture a scene with a lot of dynamic range, and you have a sensor that can capture significantly more or less dynamic range than another option, I'd argue that the final image is impacted every single time you press the shutter.
Well yeah, that's a common criticism of 4/3rds sensors, they've had a glacial rate of change. I'm hopeful that this new 4/3 Sony sensor has their latest and greatest tech and isn't as "incremental". They *have* made significant jumps in the past few years, with the aforementioned 1" RX100 sensor and the 35mm D800 sensor, for example... maybe they did the same for 4/3rds.