12MP is the limit for 4/3rds

[Rooz]

i suspect that the smaller sensor has alot to do with this statement but its also pretty good news for us if oly decide to refine the IQ to the point where others need to stand up and take notice. hopefully other manufacturers will follow suit. apsc has probably found the limit with 15mp in the 50d.

Olympus declares 12 megapixels is enough

"Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need," said Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, in an interview here at the Photo Marketing Association (PMA) (http://www.cnet.com/PMA/). "We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System," Olympus' line of SLR cameras, he said.
Instead, Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting, he said.

Increasing the number of megapixels on cameras is an easy selling point for camera makers, in part because it's a simple concept for people to understand. Even though having more megapixels can enable larger prints and enlargement of subject matter through cropping, adding megapixels comes with some drawbacks.

For one thing, smaller pixels can mean more noisy speckles at the pixel level and can reduce the dynamic range, so brighter areas wash out and darker areas become swaths of black. For another, images take more room on memory cards, hard drives, and Web servers, and cameras need more powerful image processors to handle them. And yesteryear's cameras already had plenty of pixels for making 8x10-inch prints, a size few people exceed.

Camera and sensor makers have been steadily improving digital cameras to compensate for the drawbacks, though. The space on the sensor that's devoted to electronics rather than light gathering has been reduced. Other improvements have come with the tiny microlenses that help each sensor's pixel to gather more light and with the color filters that determine whether a pixel records red, green, or blue.

full article here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

[TheObiJuan]

I'm glad they acknowledged the truth and rather than put out an inferior product, they are actively pursuing improvement.

[Norm in Fujino]

Now if only consumers would educate themselves to understand the point. I was with a group of relatives at New Year's, including two doctors, and we started talking about cameras--all they could tell about determining a camera's "quality" was how many megapixels it had. They thought manufacturers would continue "improving" cameras by cramming more and more pixels into pocket digicams, and I had to explain why that might allow larger prints at base ISO (which NONE of them needed), but would increasingly spoil the ability to shoot at higher sensitivities (which they would ALL like).
I doubt if Olympus will give up higher MP entirely, since the ZD lenses are said to be able to resolve up to a 20MP sensor, but they're probably waiting for a new technology breakthrough in sensors, and want to spend their current r&d investment more effectively by working improving high ISO performance without hurting their jpeg and color renditions.

[raven15]

I hope so since I feel the ideal number in a (small sensored) DSLR is 8-12MP. 12 MP is at the high end of the range, but would allow 300dpi prints at virtually all common sizes (not too mention a whole lot of cropping if digital is the end use). I'd take more dynamic range over more megapixels any day of the week, so I welcome the announcement.

But I won't believe it until I see it.

[faisal]

Good to hear this....wish other manufacturers would follow as well...
But unfortunately as Norm in Fujino said, most consumers know nothing about cameras and would buy the camera with the maximum number of mega pixels....
I still try pursuing everyone I know not to buy a P&S camera with more than 8mp...but the majority still drool over the 13mp cameras that have popped up recently....so I guess the mega pixel war is here to stay!!!

[Csae]

I usually go about it one of two ways when people ask me how many megapixels my camera is :

1) Give them the number and explain to the them that the SIZE of the megapixels also matters.

2) Tell them my camera has No megapixels at all, that the sensor is something completely different. Requiring no explination and leaving them puzzled.

[cdifoto]

Good for Olympus. Now if Canon, Nikon, and Sony follow suit, people will become educated. After all, if everyone stops the MP race, then consumers will finally realize that it's not about MP.

Unfortunately, it's hard to sell a camera based on quality. It's easier to sell a number. Consider the number of forum newbies who ask which camera to buy and get pissed off when they're told to go compare sample images and decide which ones they like best.

[GaryS]

Good for Olympus, but I wonder if they will be able to stick to it. So many magazines and online sites will go on and on about how megapixels don't matter... but then in their camera reviews, the first thing they say is "the resolution of the E-3 is disappointing, and not up to the standards of this class of cameras".

I think Olympus will cave... and things will continue on as they are.

[cdifoto]

I think Olympus will cave... and things will continue on as they are.
Yeah like Fuji did with their F series compacts. :(

[faisal]

Yeah like Fuji did with their F series compacts. :(

What did they do???

[David Metsky]

What did they do???
Boosted the number of MP so much that they lost all advantages of the SuperCCD sensor.

[Rooz]

Unfortunately, it's hard to sell a camera based on quality. It's easier to sell a number. Consider the number of forum newbies who ask which camera to buy and get pissed off when they're told to go compare sample images and decide which ones they like best.

i agree with this. maybe they can come up with a dynamic range number and market the crap out of it.

[cdifoto]

i agree with this. maybe they can come up with a dynamic range number and market the crap out of it.
No doubt. Perhaps call 'em "megariffs" or something.

"My camera is awesome. It has 32.2 megariffs."
"What's a megariff?"
"I dunno but my camera has 32.2 of 'em. Says so on the hangy thing."

[pianoplayer88key]

I'd like to see an improvement in high ISO.

Also, for compact cameras, back off on the bleeping megapixels to like 3 or 4 on a 1/2.3" sensor, or like 5 or 6 on a 1/1.7" sensor, until you manufacturers can give us ISO 6400 that looks as good as on the Nikon D3/D700.

[Rhys]

When you consider 12mp in 4:3 format is 4,000 by 3,000 pixels and that this gives us a pretty decent print size. 3000 pixels at 300dpi is 10 inches and 4000 pixels at 300dpi is 13.3 inches. At 150dpi this is 20x26.6 inches. That's a pretty decent size - good enough for most purposes. When was the last time you ordered a print bigger than 20x26? My largest was 16x24 so far.

I think Olympus is right to concentrate on quality. As they say - it's not the size that matters but the quality :p

I like the Olympus system but if they can get 128000 ISO to look like 100ISO then they could be onto a good thing.

[Screenclutter]

I'm finding with my friends that the most important qualities are price, weight and smaller size. Picture quality is not even on their radar, even though they notice the vastly better quality of dSLR pictures.

I hope that most of the market out there are not like my friends.

I'd like to see medium-format trickle down into the mainstream some day, but I think this won't happen for at least 10 years.

[cwphoto]

Interesting debate, however doesn't down-sampling a higher MP image to a lower MP image overcome the inherent noise disadvantage one gets with a high MP camera?

If so, then more MP is still a valid pursuit - not least of which for cropping flexibility.

[raven15]

Interesting debate, however doesn't down-sampling a higher MP image to a lower MP overcome the inherent noise disadvantage one gets with a high MP camera?.

I've wondered that too, is noise actually getting worse on the image scale?. But it does seem to me that extra megapixels decrease dynamic range, which I consider to a more pressing need because it affects every shot. Since about 90% of all pictures taken are at ISO 400 or less anyhow, I think less noise in 10% is secondary to improving the dynamic range and color "depth" of the other 90%, so staying at fewer megapixels would be beneficial in those areas.

[Rooz]

.

I've wondered that too, is noise actually getting worse on the image scale?. But it does seem to me that extra megapixels decrease dynamic range, which I consider to a more pressing need because it affects every shot. Since about 90% of all pictures taken are at ISO 400 or less anyhow, I think less noise in 10% is secondary to improving the dynamic range and color "depth" of the other 90%, so staying at fewer megapixels would be beneficial in those areas.
i wouldnt say 90%, not for me anyway, i reckon more like 60% for me. 90% under 800 is more about right. but i agree with your point. i'd much prefer to have more work on the quality of the under 400 iso than get a little better at the over 3200.

[raven15]

i wouldnt say 90%, not for me anyway, i reckon more like 60% for me. 90% under 800 is more about right. but i agree with your point. i'd much prefer to have more work on the quality of the under 400 iso than get a little better at the over 3200.

ISO 800, ISO 400, whatever ;). As you agreed, the point is that more megapixels don't have a detrimental effect on high ISO in particular, so much as a broad detrimental effect at all ISO's (which is not as easy to quantify), of which lower ISO's are merely the most commonly used by a wide margin.

(I actually can't tell though, do you mean under ISO400 and under ISO800, or ISO400 and under and ISO800 and under? Not that it makes much difference).

[JFOPie]

.

I've wondered that too, is noise actually getting worse on the image scale?. But it does seem to me that extra megapixels decrease dynamic range, which I consider to a more pressing need because it affects every shot. Since about 90% of all pictures taken are at ISO 400 or less anyhow, I think less noise in 10% is secondary to improving the dynamic range and color "depth" of the other 90%, so staying at fewer megapixels would be beneficial in those areas.

Hi -

Long time lurker, first time poster. :-)

It's not so much that the extra MP decrease dynamic range, but much more that putting a larger number of pixels in the same space decreases dynamic range. It has everything to do with the physical size of the sensor array components and how they process information.

Packing more and more sensor elements into the array of a given size means that the sensor elements, given the current technology, will be smaller and less able to respond to the quanta energy we call light. If anything, less noise and fewer artifacts should be the way that Olympus will turn the 4/3 system sensors into the sensor of choice.

I would vastly prefer 10MP with an extended dynamic array that gives me detail in the deepest shadows while maintaining subtle differences in brilliant whites than 100MP with very limited dynamic response...

John