Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nova Invicta
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Guys
    Let me put this debate current perspective, the full frame movie image is roughly equal to the old half frame Olympus made in the original Pen series, it fits between APS-H and APS-C at 24.92mm x 18.67mm the reality is cameras like the Sony F35 are closer to APS-C and they fill a screen the size of the Odean Leicester Square with grain free images that almost match the best 35mm film stocks from Kodak. Movie HD cameras come as either CMOS or CCD although they are all going CMOS. Sure four thirds at 17.3mm x 13mm is smaller and more like say 16mm in movie terms but is larger than 2/3" CCD cameras which can also fill the Odean Leicester Square with decent pictures. Sensor sizes are important but you can get great dynamic range from small sensors its the noise that becomes critical (movie HD cameras have anywhere up to 13 stops of dynamic range more than enough for most situations.
    Newer sensors like the Panavision SVI Dynamax sensor read data in an entirely new way and can extract the same kind of performance a full frame still camera can in an area less than half the size so dont be seduced into thinking Olympus and the 4/3rds system cannot be improved, it can.
    Olympus old sensor partner Kodak are the ones behind Leica S2 camera and they are improving their technology continuosly including a newer version of the bayer pattern which now uses chroma to increase dynamic range over the simple red / green so I would keep hold of those Olympus lenses that were designed for digital completely and are near telecentric in design they definately got one thing right over their bigger competitors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    I agree that if you need to crop a shot to get a portion of the shot into print. More pixels will lend itself to producing a good reporduction in print materials. But this is a purpose that needs to be satisfied. Not just some need for more. I guess that's why there were press cameras in the past.

    Going forward we will need to establish all of the needs of the end user and make sure that there is a true need rather than the hype.

    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    While personally I'd much rather see lower noise at higher ISOs, to help extend the range of available light photography, I must put in a small word for megapixels. Editing a quarterly local magazine I'm usually looking for usable images of things that have to be in it. Very often such images are found not in a subject as composed in a formal shot, but in a crop that can be quite a small area of the original. The more pixels there are to play with, the better the chance of getting a crop that makes 300dpi for printing. So it's not just about full print size (the mag is A5) ....

    Leave a comment:


  • RogerMac
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    That was an informative and adult thread, so unlike those on a rival forum that seem to degenerate into name calling after about 6 posts. Various points were raised and here are some of my disjointed comments:

    1. Thanks Dennis and Richard for reminding me that “excellent 16X20” can have two meanings – either “sharp and well exposed” or “worth looking at” and these are not the same thing. In fact I rather like Richard’s suggestion of a course – if I can find the right one I might well enrol.
    2. Canikon did not always own the professional’s playing field. When I started photography the news ‘togs were using Nikons exclusively and while Canon produced good cameras they never quite cracked that market. Along came the AE1 and Canon sold a million a year for at least two years (mine is no. 1,531,638 and I bought it about 18 months after they came out). On the back of the cash flow from the A series Canon broadened and deepened their product line and the rest is history, very few ‘togs used the A series but they all benefited from the products that it funded.
    3. I still help run a small IT company (although it’s now owned my son) and believe me cash flow is king. As soon as we find a nice little earner we plough back the profits into other (related) products – if Oly find that they can make MFT a success I am quite sure it will result in new R&D for the full series.

    As you may gather I think that the E series remains the one for me and I have just put my money where my mouth is by ordering an expensive lens – it should arrive today so I am looking forward to a new toy


    Hope that's not too verbose


    Roger
    Last edited by RogerMac; 11th September 2008, 01:34 PM. Reason: Typo

    Leave a comment:


  • R MacE
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Excellent,

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    A great ending! With all of the hoopla about megapixels, your discussion on the computer side is very valid. As the file gets larger, it puts more demand on other resources to produce larger files. Thus the cost is not just the camera and lenses, it also entails the post processing. If you print at home on a 8 or 10 ink cartridge Epson, Canon, or HP (wide carraige) the cost for replacing these cartridges is very high.

    We need to put all of this in perspective and understand all of the issues and determine the point where more will only dictate more diminishing returns. When I owned 35MM rigs I held on to them for at least 5 years before I started to turn over the equipment. In today's scenario, it is way faster, but does more really give you more, or less?

    10 to12 megapixels really gives the majority of end users enough data to get prints from 16x20 down to the standard 4x6s. Several days ago I sent a JPEG from my E520 and edited it, then uploaded it to MPix an online print house. When I selected the 16x20 size for the enlargement, it stated that my 11 plus Meg JPEG could actually be used to make a 20x30 So 24.3 megs? I guess with that much data I can make a wall mural.

    My point here is we need to stop the more and demand the quality. I am with you on the current breed that we own and use. Maybe we should do more critquing of the the output and not so much emphasis on the light box-camera!

    Dennis G

    Leave a comment:


  • Zuiko
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Just as a post script, and to play Devil's Advocate, let's suppose for one moment that Oly did abandon 4/3. What would that mean to us?

    I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would be left with a superb camera (E3) that fulfills all my requirements and is robust enough to continue to do so for many years to come. It may have become obsolete but it would still produce the same high quality images it does now.

    As a bonus, many existing users would migrate to other systems and e-bay would become flooded with cheap, high quality glass that I could actually afford!

    But what effect would it have on potential sales of my work? Would magazine editors reject it because it was taken on a camera no longer in production? I don't seem to have that problem with trannies taken on my Bronica which is equally obsolete, unloved and unwanted.

    But what if 10mp became so outdated because most cameras eventually had 100 (yes, 100) MP? Well, currrent magazine printing technology can only realistically utilise 300ppi - any resolution beyond this is wasted. The E3's 10mp can easily produce a front cover at 300ppi.

    In any case, the concept of magazines physically printed on paper must be destined for obsolescence itself. Surely in the future most magazines will be downloaded online. Who needs 100mp to produce images for the Web at 72ppi?

    Just a thought, if we all started shooting 24mp RAW files (never mind 100mp files!) just how big would the hard drives on our computers need to be? And how much RAM would we need for Photoshop?

    And eventually, by the time we got to 500mp cameras, don't you think that the Fancy Dans driving the demand for ever more pixels might start to realise that their pictures were still going to be crap at any resolution?

    At that point, having exhausted all other innovtions, it's quite conceivable that at least one manufacturer would re-invent the wheel by introducing a miniature camera system with a smaller sensor of about 10mp, "All you'll ever need for producing high quality Web images and even traditional prints up to 20x16."

    And of course, my E3 will still be going strong!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Now I think were are all on the same page. Thanks for all of your inputs, but lets get back to "Best Practices" and see where the technology can truly help the photographer do his or her job better!

    This was a great volley!

    Dennis G

    Leave a comment:


  • R MacE
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Originally posted by dennisg View Post
    AND let make a statement, "I am very satisfied with my E520 and the lenses that I have. JPEGS that are at 11 Megs do a real fine job and the RAW format even better. So I will not in the near future move to some other format. What I am concerned about is the support and the proliferation of the E line. As an informed customer, it's the life cycle of the product line that concerns me.

    Dennis G
    My sentiments exactly.

    I'll try to further clarify my comments about Canikon 'Owning the Ball'

    When the E-System was launched Olympus were trying to provide a DSLR that could equal a 35mm SLR in terms of IQ. To all intents and purposes they did just that. The 5mp E-1 was and still is capable of producing prints well above the 35mm standard of 8"x10". At that point Canikon could have followed suit but they didn't simply because they have a bunch of Ace's up their respective sleeves in the form of a significant users base who wanted to utilise their investment in 35mm equipment. Canikon can hardly be blamed for supplying the demand. Had they opted for a designed for Digital system, not nescessarily 4/3rds, they would have been throwing away the user base Ace's and would have been playing on a level playing field along with Olympus. There would have been less reason for people to stick with Canikon if they were going to have to buy into a completely new system. Canikon still have the user base and regardless of what technology appears they will simply continue to implement it into their existing range. The Digital Single Lens Reflex is going to be around for a very long time, the drive towards Full Frame is well established and with Sony now wanting to play (to Canikon rules) the race is well and truely on. I expect Pentax/Samsung to join sooner rather than later as they also can play the Legacy card. That leaves Olympus as the only DSLR maker without a Full Frame option, they however have no legacy 35mm lenses unless you count the OM system which aren't really going to cut it in the current pro market. The E-System lenses obviously won't work on a Full Frame body so Olympus would need to go back to the drawing board and design yet another system from the ground up. Are they capable? of course, can they reassure enough prospective buyers that they are a good long term investment? I doubt it. The question remains how long can Olympus invest in the E-System and still remain profitable. I don't have the answer and I suspect neither do Olympus which is why we're seeing the emergence of m4/3rds.

    IMO of course

    Leave a comment:


  • R MacE
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    I think what Dennis means is that if people can't get high quality 20"x16" from a 16mp DSLR then they'd be better spending the money on a photography course than on another camera.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    What I am saying is, how many pixels do we really need to get a good quality enlargemnet. How big is big? How red is red? How sharp is sharp?

    We take pictures for the moment, message, the mood, etc. When we get all pent-up with specs we lose the true art of photography. So if we as photographers need more megs to make great shots, where does the need end?

    Remember when we shot Plus X, Kodachrome, Agfa, we were all able to get it done. So a baseline for equipment needs to be established and all of the bells and whistles are a nice thing but don't add anything to the quality of the shot.

    As stated before, I think full frame sensors are going to be the standard by which others are measured by due to the fact they are becoming more prevelant in the marketplace. Thus over time, the price point will come down as all technologies do. So the other size sensors, are going to be in jeopardy of being passed by by certain segments of the marketplace. It has happened before, and will continue in the future!

    AND let make a statement, "I am very satisfied with my E520 and the lenses that I have. JPEGS that are at 11 Megs do a real fine job and the RAW format even better. So I will not in the near future move to some other format. What I am concerned about is the support and the proliferation of the E line. As an informed customer, it's the life cycle of the product line that concerns me.

    Dennis G

    Leave a comment:


  • RogerMac
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Once we get over 16 Megapixels, if you cannot get an excellent 16x20 enlargement
    Not quite sure what you meant by that - I reckon that I can easily get excellent 16X20 from my current E510 - (usually as a cropped print on a smaller piece of paper) and the quality does not seem to run out till something over 1.5 that in linear size.

    Roger

    Leave a comment:


  • RogerMac
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Thanks - I see what you mean!

    Roger

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Well with three sensor breaking up light into their primary colors seems to be a route to take, but it's another configuration over and above the current one chip-sensor model that exists in our current E line.

    This is similar to what Intel and AMD are striving for. Putting multiple "Cores" on the same landscape to route information to a core that is not fully being used. Thus increased speed in a single core is no longer an issue or a need. By having several cores working in tandem, more work gets done in less time and produces less heat.

    So again we are back where we are in the "Current State", how does this translate to the "Future State" for Olympus? Does the route take Oly to multiple sensors for a higher level of performance OR do they layer their 4/3 senor to split the primar colors to incorporate better dynamic range and performance. Once we get over 16 Megapixels, if you cannot get an excellent 16x20 enlargement, then there are other issues beyond the scope of the rig! The statements made in earlier replies states that the "Glass" then becomes the over riding factor!!

    As I have stated, I will be at the Photo East Show here in NYC in October. I will have a lot of questions to be asked when I get to the Olympus exhitbition booth.

    Leave a comment:


  • R MacE
    replied
    Re: Nikon and Canon pursue more competition.

    Oops, try it now.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X