Why is M43 behind in mp's?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by slackercruster, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. slackercruster

    slackercruster Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 18, 2012
    NE US
    I see other cams with big advancements in mp. Is there a reason why m43's have not made much gains in the mp department? Do m43's have special sensors like the Fuji X that give them an advantage?

  2. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    May 21, 2013
    Micro 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of full-frame and 1/2 the area of APS-C, so it's harder to add more megapixels without degrading image quality. Though I'm not really sure that's actually a problem, because 16 megapixels is plenty for most uses...
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Kilauea

    Kilauea Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 9, 2012
    Real Name:
    Unless, I am wrong, not so long ago m43 cameras were 12mp. Nikon just went up to 14mp.

    I personally prefer better sensors with better image quality than more megapixels. I prefer better lenses than more megapixels. Maybe in a year (or mostly 2), more megapixels will be welcomed, but for the time being, I see no reasons to rush for more megapixels.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    What happened to the days when we said 6 and 12 were enough? :wink:
    • Like Like x 1
  5. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    Real Name:
    I really have to admit that at least for me, 16MP is enough for most of the time if not all; but that just doesn't mean I don't want more, say if you got a sharp lens like PL25 1.4, or Sigma 60 2.8, you'll want as many pixel count as you can get!

    And I use to think the cancellation of AA filter is a stupid idea, but ever since I've seen how Fovean and X-Trans perform, I started to believe there's definitely more to expect in term of sharpness.

    So I think we are all good with 16MP, but things can always be better, otherwise we wouldn't have what we have right now.
  6. darosk

    darosk Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Apr 17, 2013
    Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
    Real Name:
    16 is good for now. As sensor tech improves, we'll get more, as many as standards can bear. It's always improving. What's the rush to chase MP anyhow.
  7. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Real Name:
    I still think 12mp is plenty enough... I had so much fun with the D700, I only sold it because I want a small system. I have no use for more MP and I think 90% or more of the photographers don't really need more than that unless of course your printing large.

    If you want to print large though I think m43 is the wrong system to get into.

    Sent from my GT-N7100 using Mu-43 mobile app
    • Like Like x 2
  8. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    You get used to having lots of high-quality resolution - it's tough to step back. My benchmark camera remains the 5D mark II, and there have been plenty f times where even a moderately large (not huge) print that required a little cropping was only just 'ideal' with 20 MP.
  9. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Real Name:
    Nikon's flagship, the D4 has 16mp. I'd like more too but not at the expense of image quality and camera performance.

    • Like Like x 2
  10. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    APSC is 1.4 x the area of u43
    FF is 3.8 x the area of u43

    Given the same pixel density as on the 16Mp u43 cameras (E-M1/5, GH3, GX7 etc), then APSC cameras should be offering 23Mp and FF 61Mp. On this basis, u43 is actually at or ahead of the other formats in terms of pixel packing.

    I can't see there being great strides in u43 Mp count in the short term since a) it'll be hard to do without increasing noise and so poorer high ISO, and b) I really can't see a need. I'd prefer improved noise and DR rather than more Mp.
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Real Name:
    16mp is sometimes not enough. Some recent shots I need to rotate just slightly. You really degrade the image with rotation. So the more MP the better to keep the quality. I had to drop some shots from my 'best' list because of it. On other shots, hefty cropping was needed.

    It's like raw. I don't always need it. But it's great to have for those one in ten shots that go outside the limits.

    And don't mistakenly think I'm asking for more Mp at the expense of DR. Each new generation of sensors improves the quality. I just want the next generation.

    It doesn't appear that m43 sensors are in anyway lagging behind though.
  12. jaomul

    jaomul Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 22, 2013
    I think the moderate 4mp increase and much improved image quality available on the newer 16mp sensors adds up to a major improvement in sensor technology in m43. While it is certainly down to each individual (of course some people need more than 16mp) I find it humourous that lots want more, yet the amount of actual image printing these days is way down.

    If you need more than 16mp you probably should be using a different format
  13. slackercruster

    slackercruster Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 18, 2012
    NE US
    My problem comes when I have to crop and make a 13 x 19 print. Quality is poor. But I am using the old 12 mp m43's. I never upgraded to 16 cause it is such a small increase in mp. I was hoping m43 goes to 24 mp before I upgrade. Does not seem it will happen any time soon.
  14. slackercruster

    slackercruster Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 18, 2012
    NE US
    Yes, I agree. For computer viewing it would be fine. I make lots of prints, so need decent print quality for up to 13 x 19 with some cropping.
  15. deang001

    deang001 Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 16, 2013
    Hong Kong
    Real Name:
    16MP is enough 90% of the time, but like others have said, there are times when around 24MP would be nice.

    Staying at 16MP is a fair trade off for being able to use a lightweight, high quality mature system with super sharp tiny lenses though.
  16. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 7, 2010
    I really think you are underestimating the sensor improvements above and beyond the 4 MPs. I don't understand any of the underlying technology to explain those improvements, but I do know you can't judge simply by megapixels.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Real Name:
    Well then, don't crop so much. Shoot it right the first time. ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 31, 2013
    I don't understand why people think you need that resolution to work with for post crop prints. There were pros in the day using Nikon D2H/s es (4 megapixels. The D3/s crops to 5mp for the APS-C mode) to print. There are more complex ways to enlarge an image for print that preserves detail even at huge print sizes.

    This is a simple example:

    Maybe the neurotic cult of the "I don't view my photos at 100% but I will look at the massive prints with a loupe" of the D800E types love this kind of thing. I know this far too well from the cult of the D200 people that "intensely insisted" that I was a moron for not worshipping Ren Kockwell (Don't look him up in his actual "KR" name if you don't know who I am talking about, he makes cash off your views and purchases via embedded cookies all while spreading his filth) and shooting at base ISO all day long in ultrabright daylight with a superglued strobe ontop. They also were screaming how the D2H had no point when the D200 was "better in every way."

    Funny how this still is the case with the D800E users.

    So I guess m43s can offer a D800E option by stuffing a point and shoot sensor in with pixel density so high you are more concerned if they're going to start seeing pixel pitch bordering on the wavelength of light from the neurotic megapixel race that led to nothing good in the past. Especially since m43s is approaching the pixel pitch of the D800. Maybe they can market that as if it was a good thing that required people to pay $600 more for inferior IQ at ISO 800 and another $400 for the removal of the AA filter. Oh wait...

    For all the people who want to ignore my important point: Hypothetically m43s should be able to handle a 48x72 print by those standards if you read that nice article and think about all the competent and capable people who handled or still handled a D2H/s.

    Read: This is like Digilloyd pretending that camera adapters can't be made to exacting submicron tolerances when you could machine metal to tolerances far under 4 microns before 1920. You read that right, almost an entire century ago they could make things that precise on a regular basis.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    I was taking 5mpx photos today, did you want 20?

    The jump in megapixels for the APS-C and 35mm sensors is always a bit disappointing to me.
    I don't believe more is always better,
    however I do believe the production process can 'force' certain concentrations of pixels, resulting in the snesors we have today.
    Perhaps with current techniques they find it a bit awkward to get less pixels onto a well-performing chip.
  20. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 21, 2013
    16mp is a 33% increase on 12mp, which is quite a bit, I think; and the current generation of sensors are better in other ways such as improved high ISO. That being said, people are still making great photos with the 12mp sensors, so I can see the validity on waiting for the next improvement.