Is Olympus going in the wrong direction?

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,690
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I'm only concerned about the 21.6mm diameter of that image circle that would correspond to the maximum diagonal of any rectangle (or square) that would fit inside that image circle.
Anyways, just a small misunderstanding. No biggie.
Yes on your part. As soon as you restrict one dimension to 15.3, then I can draw a Shiitake Mushroom ton of rectangles or squares that fit in the image circle that do not give a 21.6mm maximum diagonal of "any rectangle that would fit inside that image circle". Perhaps you are talking about only landscape orientation which is different that the original comment about being able to take portrait photos without turning the camera. Sounds like your sensor requires turning the camera for portraits so no real gain there,
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
216
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Yes on your part. As soon as you restrict one dimension to 15.3, then I can draw a Shiitake Mushroom ton of rectangles or squares that fit in the image circle that do not give a 21.6mm maximum diagonal of "any rectangle that would fit inside that image circle". Perhaps you are talking about only landscape orientation which is different that the original comment about being able to take portrait photos without turning the camera. Sounds like your sensor requires turning the camera for portraits so no real gain there,
Perhaps you're confusing my post with someone else's then.
I AM only talking about in landscape orientation. It was another poster who wanted the ability to switch to portrait without turning the camera.
I explained to that poster whilst that would be good, the dimensions required exceed that of the next standard sized sensor (APS-C) and would require a custom sized sensor which would likely be very expensive.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,690
Location
Massachusetts, USA
As the previous comments clearly referenced square sensors in order for both portrait and landscape shooting, then your comment, without any clarification that you were now restricting your comment to only landscape, is unreasonable to expect anyone to understand your intention. Regardless ALL those theoretical sensors are custom so none of them are any different from the others in that regard.
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
216
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
As the previous comments clearly referenced square sensors in order for both portrait and landscape shooting, then your comment, without any clarification that you were now restricting your comment to only landscape, is unreasonable to expect anyone to understand your intention. Regardless ALL those theoretical sensors are custom so none of them are any different from the others in that regard.
Still don't know which previous comment you're referencing. I had explained to the other poster the size required for each of the ratios up to a 1:1 square ratio. I also explained the size required IF you wanted it in both portrait and landscape orientation without turning the camera, but it's not something I wanted.

For what I'd like to see, a 18.8mm X 15.3mm active area fits within an existing standard APS-C sensor so no, it wouldn't require a custom sensor.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,690
Location
Massachusetts, USA
For what I'd like to see, a 18.8mm X 15.3mm active area fits within an existing standard APS-C sensor so no, it wouldn't require a custom sensor.
Well of course it would. It is a smaller sensor (still) than APC-C. You can not simply "crop" a sensor like you do a photograph. The sensor would have to be redesigned to fit your new dimensions.
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
216
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Well of course it would. It is a smaller sensor (still) than APC-C. You can not simply "crop" a sensor like you do a photograph. The sensor would have to be redesigned to fit your new dimensions.
I'm not asking them to cut the sensor. I'm saying use the actual APS-C sensor. You'd crop to the desired active area by software.
And yes, my contention is APS-C sensors make a good candidate for an oversized multiaspect ratio sensor for m43.
Just that in the past it didn't have the pixel density that'd make sense against native Type 43 sensors.
But if the catalogue 43MP stacked BSI Sony Semi sensor is real then APS-C is about to leapfrog m43 in terms of pixel density because it only makes it into the Sony Semi catalogue when there are multiple manufacturers with firm interests in that sensor. So m43 is about to give up another one of its advantages.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,468
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
I'm not asking them to cut the sensor. I'm saying use the actual APS-C sensor. You'd crop to the desired active area by software.
And yes, my contention is APS-C sensors make a good candidate for an oversized multiaspect ratio sensor for m43.
Just that in the past it didn't have the pixel density that'd make sense against native Type 43 sensors.
But if the catalogue 43MP stacked BSI Sony Semi sensor is real then APS-C is about to leapfrog m43 in terms of pixel density because it only makes it into the Sony Semi catalogue when there are multiple manufacturers with firm interests in that sensor. So m43 is about to give up another one of its advantages.
Odds are if there is an increase in pixel density there is a corresponding increase in ISO noise.

Always a tradeoff.
 

Leolab

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
73
Just for the sake of argument here is a little math to establish the benefits of shooting a m43 lens on APSC sensor wrt crop factors

Baseline: a m43 sensor has a diagonal of ~22mm, which means that the m43 lenses must have projection circles AT LEAST of 22mm in diameter.
So...Assuming a 22mm diagonal..

FROM AN APSC SENSOR
For square crop from APS-C you can crop a square 15.6x15.6mm (diagonal of 22mm) = area of 243mm2
For 4:3 crop from APSC with 22 diagonal - well you get the exact size of todays m43 = area of 220mm2
for 3:2 crop of APSC with 22mm diagonal you get a 12x18mm crop = area of 216
for 16:9 crop of APSC with 22mm diagonal you get 19.5x11mm crop = area of 214

FROM A M43 SENSOR
For square crop from m43 you are limited to 13x13 = area of 169
For 4:3 crop you get todays m43 sensor = area of 220mm2
For 3:2 crop you get 17.3x11.5 = 199
For 16:9 crop you gat 17.3x9.7 = 168mm2

SO...
A square crop of APSC using m43 lens can yield a 44% increase in sensor size (243mm2/169mm2) vs a square crop from our m43 sensors
For 3:2 the benefit is about 8% vs today m43
For 16:9 the benefit is 27%

one interesting observation on these calculations...A 16:9 crop and a 3:2 crop from an APSC sensor with m43 lens gives us a sensor area (214 and 216mm2) about the same size as todays uncropped m43 sensor (220mm2), and for those that shoot square I can get about a 10% increase in sensor size shooting a m43 lens in square crop on APSC vs shooting natively on m43.

My conclusion: For those who like to shoot in multiple aspect ratios, there is real benefit (wrt sensor area) of putting an APSC sensor behind the m43 lens vs cropping the m43 sensor. Essentially all of these crops yield ~equivalent or larger sensor area vs using the full m43 sensor uncrossed, once you start taking the 43 sensor and cropping it to alternate aspect ratios, the benefit is even greater.
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
216
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Just for the sake of argument here is a little math to establish the benefits of shooting a m43 lens on APSC sensor wrt crop factors

Baseline: a m43 sensor has a diagonal of ~22mm, which means that the m43 lenses must have projection circles AT LEAST of 22mm in diameter.
So...Assuming a 22mm diagonal..

FROM AN APSC SENSOR
For square crop from APS-C you can crop a square 15.6x15.6mm (diagonal of 22mm) = area of 243mm2
For 4:3 crop from APSC with 22 diagonal - well you get the exact size of todays m43 = area of 220mm2
for 3:2 crop of APSC with 22mm diagonal you get a 12x18mm crop = area of 216
for 16:9 crop of APSC with 22mm diagonal you get 19.5x11mm crop = area of 214

FROM A M43 SENSOR
For square crop from m43 you are limited to 13x13 = area of 169
For 4:3 crop you get todays m43 sensor = area of 220mm2
For 3:2 crop you get 17.3x11.5 = 199
For 16:9 crop you gat 17.3x9.7 = 168mm2

SO...
A square crop of APSC using m43 lens can yield a 44% increase in sensor size (243mm2/169mm2) vs a square crop from our m43 sensors
For 3:2 the benefit is about 8% vs today m43
For 16:9 the benefit is 27%

one interesting observation on these calculations...A 16:9 crop and a 3:2 crop from an APSC sensor with m43 lens gives us a sensor area (214 and 216mm2) about the same size as todays uncropped m43 sensor (220mm2), and for those that shoot square I can get about a 10% increase in sensor size shooting a m43 lens in square crop on APSC vs shooting natively on m43.

My conclusion: For those who like to shoot in multiple aspect ratios, there is real benefit (wrt sensor area) of putting an APSC sensor behind the m43 lens vs cropping the m43 sensor. Essentially all of these crops yield ~equivalent or larger sensor area vs using the full m43 sensor uncrossed, once you start taking the 43 sensor and cropping it to alternate aspect ratios, the benefit is even greater.
FYI, I also summarised the maths for the oversized sensor in post #260 but I based my calculations on an image circle diameter of 21.6mm so it’s slightly different to your calculations.
They were:
APS-C vs oversized m43 vs normal m43:
3:2 = 384mm² vs 216mm² vs 199mm²
4:3 = 341mm² vs 225mm² vs 225mm²
16:9 = 324mm² vs 199mm² vs 168mm²
1:1 = 256mm² vs 234mm² vs 169mm²

And I agree with your conclusions. For those who use multiple aspect ratios rather than mainly 4:3, I think the improvements are very attractive.
 

Leolab

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
73
FYI, I also summarised the maths for the oversized sensor in post #260 but I based my calculations on an image circle diameter of 21.6mm so it’s slightly different to your calculations.
They were:
APS-C vs oversized m43 vs normal m43:
3:2 = 384mm² vs 216mm² vs 199mm²
4:3 = 341mm² vs 225mm² vs 225mm²
16:9 = 324mm² vs 199mm² vs 168mm²
1:1 = 256mm² vs 234mm² vs 169mm²

And I agree with your conclusions. For those who use multiple aspect ratios rather than mainly 4:3, I think the improvements are very attractive.
Sorry, Swifty I did not see that post.
 

swifty

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
216
Location
Singapore
Real Name
Dave
Odds are if there is an increase in pixel density there is a corresponding increase in ISO noise.

Always a tradeoff.
Well this will launch a whole other side discussion so I won’t go into it much except to say that I think total sensor area is now the most important determinant of SNR performance for sensors with similar sensor tech and that relatively small differences in pixel density won’t have a significant influence.
 

Leolab

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
73
Well this will launch a whole other side discussion so I won’t go into it much except to say that I think total sensor area is now the most important determinant of SNR performance for sensors with similar sensor tech and that relatively small differences in pixel density won’t have a significant influence.
i agree with this, i think this is proven out with our m43 evolution, where each successive sensor (12,16,20mp) had at least equivalent if not better SNR ratio despite increases in pixel density
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,468
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Just for the sake of argument here is a little math to establish the benefits of shooting a m43 lens on APSC sensor wrt crop factors

Baseline: a m43 sensor has a diagonal of ~22mm, which means that the m43 lenses must have projection circles AT LEAST of 22mm in diameter.
So...Assuming a 22mm diagonal..

FROM AN APSC SENSOR
For square crop from APS-C you can crop a square 15.6x15.6mm (diagonal of 22mm) = area of 243mm2
For 4:3 crop from APSC with 22 diagonal - well you get the exact size of todays m43 = area of 220mm2
for 3:2 crop of APSC with 22mm diagonal you get a 12x18mm crop = area of 216
for 16:9 crop of APSC with 22mm diagonal you get 19.5x11mm crop = area of 214

FROM A M43 SENSOR
For square crop from m43 you are limited to 13x13 = area of 169
For 4:3 crop you get todays m43 sensor = area of 220mm2
For 3:2 crop you get 17.3x11.5 = 199
For 16:9 crop you gat 17.3x9.7 = 168mm2

SO...
A square crop of APSC using m43 lens can yield a 44% increase in sensor size (243mm2/169mm2) vs a square crop from our m43 sensors
For 3:2 the benefit is about 8% vs today m43
For 16:9 the benefit is 27%

one interesting observation on these calculations...A 16:9 crop and a 3:2 crop from an APSC sensor with m43 lens gives us a sensor area (214 and 216mm2) about the same size as todays uncropped m43 sensor (220mm2), and for those that shoot square I can get about a 10% increase in sensor size shooting a m43 lens in square crop on APSC vs shooting natively on m43.

My conclusion: For those who like to shoot in multiple aspect ratios, there is real benefit (wrt sensor area) of putting an APSC sensor behind the m43 lens vs cropping the m43 sensor. Essentially all of these crops yield ~equivalent or larger sensor area vs using the full m43 sensor uncrossed, once you start taking the 43 sensor and cropping it to alternate aspect ratios, the benefit is even greater.
Those who like to shoot *stills* in multi-aspect ratios *uncropped*.

So all Olympus 43 sensor bodies redesigned.
Likely all IBIS systems redesigned.
Manufacturing from spec all new.
All assembly re-mapped and trained.
New marketing.
Loss of high-margin revenues from grip add-onS.

Definitely not videocentric, the dominant market now for stand-alone camera systems.

Huge up-front costs. Smaller market. Loss of revenue.

Thats why it hasn’t been done. 90% of shots in landscape mode bs all that cost NOT to swivel the camera for the other 10%.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,690
Location
Massachusetts, USA
For those who like to shoot in multiple aspect ratios, there is real benefit (wrt sensor area) of putting an APSC sensor behind the m43 lens vs cropping the m43 sensor.

For those who use multiple aspect ratios rather than mainly 4:3, I think the improvements are very attractive.
OK so all those calculations make sense. But what you guys are basically saying is OMDS should make APS-C cameras. Start a new system.

OMDS will then have to start making APS-C lenses to go these new bodies cause people are not going to like a system where you don't have lenses to use the full APS-C sensor. So OMDS makes some lenses and you now have an APS-C camera, APS-C lens, and can make all those same crops to your heart's content. Why do you even need m43 anymore? If that is what you want, then I can point you to a bunch of APS-C systems that already exist with a full compliment of lenses. It sounds like a convoluted way to come around to the APS-C systems that have been around for years. Canon, Nikon, Sony, & Fujifilm are all set up and ready to take your money.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
264
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Real Name
Neil
Those who like to shoot *stills* in multi-aspect ratios *uncropped*.
Yes, that’s exactly the point they are making. If you want 1:1 ratio images from the current m43 sensors, you are forced to crop in PP and lose resolution.

By placing a higher resolution APS-C sensor behind a m43 lens would allow the capture of 1:1 ratio images at higher resolution in-camera by maximizing use of the image circle.

90% of shots in landscape mode bs all that cost NOT to swivel the camera for the other 10%.
That’s an irrelevant argument. Rotating the camera from landscape to portrait only changes the orientation of the subject in the frame. It has no impact on the aspect ratio of the captured image.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
264
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Real Name
Neil
OK so all those calculations make sense. But what you guys are basically saying is OMDS should make APS-C cameras. Start a new system.

OMDS will then have to start making APS-C lenses to go these new bodies cause people are not going to like a system where you don't have lenses to use the full APS-C sensor. So OMDS makes some lenses and you now have an APS-C camera, APS-C lens, and can make all those same crops to your heart's content. Why do you even need m43 anymore? If that is what you want, then I can point you to a bunch of APS-C systems that already exist with a full compliment of lenses. It sounds like a convoluted way to come around to the APS-C systems that have been around for years. Canon, Nikon, Sony, & Fujifilm are all set up and ready to take your money.
Looks like you are struggling to think outside the “box”. Multi-aspect ratio sensors are not new. The GH5S has one, and last time I checked it’s still a m43 camera. I don’t recall complaints about Panasonic not redesigning their m43 lenses to fit this sensor.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,690
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Looks like you are struggling to think outside the “box”. Multi-aspect ratio sensors are not new. The GH5S has one, and last time I checked it’s still a m43 camera. I don’t recall complaints about Panasonic not redesigning their m43 lenses to fit this sensor.
Yes Panny had the multi-aspect sensor but it was still about the same size as m43 and I believe they were making their own sensors at the time. You are deluding yourself that thinking outside the box is coming up with putting an APS-C sensor in a m43 body when you can just buy an APS-C body. This same argument can be made that why not put FF sensors in all APS cameras and medium format sensors in all FF cameras?

Panny thought outside the box and also could afford to get the special sensor developed in house to give their body an advantage over other m43 cameras without significantly changing the sensor size. OMDS I doubt has that luxury and are dependent on other companies for sensors. They likely do not have the sales to go to crazy on customizing another company's sensor for their use in m43 sized sensors. Also putting an APS-C sensor basically throws in the towel and says "we were wrong about the system and should have done APS-C all along" or that will certainly be the spins by the Blogger and YouTubers who won't be able to wait to do a "told you so" piece.

While I think the mutli-aspect concept you guys are suggesting is an interesting minor feature, we shoot with the sensors of the system we picked and make do with what is available to us and if not big enough you move to another system. If you really wanted "out of the box" thinking then it goes back to using an ~18x18mm square sensor which is still "m43" sized. But again OMDS may not have the clout to ask someone like Sony to generate the square format in a price point that makes sense. And finally don't forget any changed to the physical sensor size now throws all your current IBIS designs out of wack so the larger sensor comes with the huge effort to maintain your dominance in IBIS in the industry.
 

Leolab

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
73
Yes Panny had the multi-aspect sensor but it was still about the same size as m43 and I believe they were making their own sensors at the time. You are deluding yourself that thinking outside the box is coming up with putting an APS-C sensor in a m43 body when you can just buy an APS-C body. This same argument can be made that why not put FF sensors in all APS cameras and medium format sensors in all FF cameras?

Panny thought outside the box and also could afford to get the special sensor developed in house to give their body an advantage over other m43 cameras without significantly changing the sensor size. OMDS I doubt has that luxury and are dependent on other companies for sensors. They likely do not have the sales to go to crazy on customizing another company's sensor for their use in m43 sized sensors. Also putting an APS-C sensor basically throws in the towel and says "we were wrong about the system and should have done APS-C all along" or that will certainly be the spins by the Blogger and YouTubers who won't be able to wait to do a "told you so" piece.

While I think the mutli-aspect concept you guys are suggesting is an interesting minor feature, we shoot with the sensors of the system we picked and make do with what is available to us and if not big enough you move to another system. If you really wanted "out of the box" thinking then it goes back to using an ~18x18mm square sensor which is still "m43" sized. But again OMDS may not have the clout to ask someone like Sony to generate the square format in a price point that makes sense. And finally don't forget any changed to the physical sensor size now throws all your current IBIS designs out of wack so the larger sensor comes with the huge effort to maintain your dominance in IBIS in the industry.
I'm not sure what the downside of this from a consumer perspective is.

The concept is to put an APS-C sensor into m43 body and to use current m43 lenses and have the unique ability to choose aspect ratios based on user need with almost zero MP change vs the 4:3 crop, with some even having a slight pixel advantage.

There is no new sensor to develop, there are no new lenses to develop, you can leverage the advances in sensor technology that appear to be more frequent on APSC side vs m43 side...

I don't think any of us know how expensive it would be to iterate the IBIS to enable the APSC vs m43 sensor...but I could think of worse ways for Olympus to spend their RD dollars (the 1.2 primes for example...)

This would at least be unique and help to differentiate m43, and serve a need in market for some...for those who never crop then this is of little interest, but also has zero drawbacks
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,468
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Yes, that’s exactly the point they are making. If you want 1:1 ratio images from the current m43 sensors, you are forced to crop in PP and lose resolution.

By placing a higher resolution APS-C sensor behind a m43 lens would allow the capture of 1:1 ratio images at higher resolution in-camera by maximizing use of the image circle.


That’s an irrelevant argument. Rotating the camera from landscape to portrait only changes the orientation of the subject in the frame. It has no impact on the aspect ratio of the captured image.
1. Yes, you have to crop 1:1. As with any other format for a very small minority of images. No competitive advantage.
2. So...an APS-C system to get there, not a 43 sensor.
3. Either a bigger sensor to not crop, or crop. I thought this was more than 1:1, but a no-rotate portrait mode with full rez.

If it's not video centric, it has all cost, no return. Tens if not 100+ million $$ to get there for maybe a market that cares that are posting in this thread.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom