Olympus going to drop pixel count?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 28, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 28, 4:00 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-olympus-revolution-the-next-pen-pro-with-...

    >
    > So some unknown, nameless and faceless guy is claiming that Olympus
    > has decided to break free of the double stranglehold placed on the
    > company by having to use Panasonic's low pixel count sensors.  
    >
    > He claims that Olympus is going to achieve this by designing a low
    > pixel count sensor in-house and then have it manufactured by
    > Panasonic.  
    >
    > So which part of the double stranglehold would Olympus escape?
    >
    > The low pixel count sensor?  
    >
    > Or relying on Panasonic?
    >
    > Or, as it would seem, neither?
    >
    > Great rumour, Rich.  ;-)


    Well, Nikon kept the 12 megapixel sensor going for a long time, and
    designed its own sensors for Sony to make.
     
    RichA, May 28, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 29, 9:15 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >Bruce <> wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > >> Rich <> wrote:
    > >>>Bruce <> wrote in
    > >>>news::
    > >>>> RichA <> wrote:
    > >>>>>On May 28, 4:00 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >>>>>> RichA <> wrote:
    > >>>>>> >http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-olympus-revolution-the-next-pen-pro-wi
    > >>>>>> >th -...

    >
    > >>>>>> So some unknown, nameless and faceless guy is claiming that
    > >>>>>> Olympus has decided to break free of the double stranglehold
    > >>>>>> placed on the company by having to use Panasonic's low pixel count
    > >>>>>> sensors.  

    >
    > >>>>>> He claims that Olympus is going to achieve this by designing a low
    > >>>>>> pixel count sensor in-house and then have it manufactured by
    > >>>>>> Panasonic.  

    >
    > >>>>>> So which part of the double stranglehold would Olympus escape?

    >
    > >>>>>> The low pixel count sensor?  

    >
    > >>>>>> Or relying on Panasonic?

    >
    > >>>>>> Or, as it would seem, neither?

    >
    > >>>>>> Great rumour, Rich.  ;-)

    >
    > >>>>>Well, Nikon kept the 12 megapixel sensor going for a long time, and
    > >>>>>designed its own sensors for Sony to make.

    >
    > >>>> But Sony never kept Nikon in any kind of stranglehold.  Far from it;
    > >>>> Sony bought Nikon steppers to make the sensors, and both companies
    > >>>> benefitted greatly from the deal.

    >
    > >>>> So there's no comparison, really.

    >
    > >>>> I believe there is a way around the Olympus problem.  Panasonic
    > >>>> could allow Olympus to use the excellent GH2 sensor in the E-5
    > >>>> successor provided that the camera did not offer video.  Olympus
    > >>>> would at last have a competitive Four Thirds DSLR with a superb
    > >>>> sensor, Panasonic would make good money out of selling the sensor
    > >>>> and sales of the Panasonic GH2 would not be hurt.  Win/win.

    >
    > >>>I don't know what transpired between Kodak and Olympus, but they
    > >>>should go back to them.  The images from their CCDs were at least
    > >>>different from the competition.  As it is now, they are similar to the
    > >>>APS offers but not as good, solely because of size.

    >
    > >> Olympus and Kodak fell out because Kodak was unable to supply a
    > >> competent sensor with more than 5 MP.  Kodak presented a series of 8
    > >> MP sensors with very high noise that almost killed off Four Thirds.
    > >> The format survived only because Panasonic came in to the market and
    > >> supplied Olympus with competent sensors.

    >
    > >> It would be perfectly understandable if Olympus never dealt with Kodak
    > >> again after that.  Olympus owes Panasonic a debt of gratitude for
    > >> saving Four Thirds - and also for developing the Micro Four Thirds
    > >> format which now provides Olympus with the majority of its income from
    > >> interchangeable lens cameras.

    >
    > >The micro 4/3rds format and sensor size is the same as 4/3rds.  The
    > >sensor size didn't change,

    >
    > I didn't say it did.
    >
    > >the mirrors disappeared the the bodies changed.

    >
    > The Micro Four Thirds mount is very different from Four Thirds.  The
    > lens flange is almost 20mm closer to the sensor.


    That is true, I imagine it does effect the design of the lenses, since
    Olympus is the only company to really show any interest in designing
    semi-telecentric lenses to compensate for the way sensors with
    microlenses behave with non-perpendicular light paths. But with in-
    firmware correction of aberrations adds another variable (if you shoot
    JPEG) to the equation. Having said that, I don't really know how
    substantially the micro lenses are different from the old 4/3rds,
    apart from their focus plane shift.
    >
    > Four Thirds was developed by Olympus.  The Micro Four Thirds format
    > was developed by Panasonic, coming as something of a shock to Olympus.


    But they quickly offered their own products.
     
    RichA, May 30, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 30, 12:03 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > On May 29, 9:15 pm, Bruce <> wrote:

    >
    > >> The Micro Four Thirds mount is very different from Four Thirds. The
    > >> lens flange is almost 20mm closer to the sensor.

    >
    > > That is true, I imagine it does effect the design of the lenses, since
    > > Olympus is the only company to really show any interest in designing
    > > semi-telecentric lenses to compensate for the way sensors with
    > > microlenses behave with non-perpendicular light paths.  But with in-
    > > firmware correction of aberrations adds another variable (if you shoot
    > > JPEG) to the equation.  Having said that, I don't really know how
    > > substantially the micro lenses are different from the old 4/3rds,
    > > apart from their focus plane shift.

    >
    > About a week ago I bought an Olympus 9-18mm m4/3 for my G1 and G2, and my
    > guess is it's essentially the same lens as the similarly spec'd 9-18 in the
    > original 4/3 version, just put in a telescoping mount for the m4/3 cameras.
    > I should think that's the easiest and cheapest way for Oly to adapt existing
    > lens designs for the shorter flange distance cameras.
    >
    > This would also explain why Olympus lenses like the kit 14-42 m4/3 are so
    > much longer in their operating position than the similarly spec'd Panasonic
    > lenses. So being "semi-telecentric" may be more a happy by-product than
    > anything else.


    If Olympus is simply slapping new bodies on the 4/3rds lenses and
    doubling the prices in the process, that is unfortunate. The 4/3rds
    lenses were bargains in most cases, compared to the competition in APS.
     
    RichA, May 30, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Bruce wrote:
    >
    > > Rich <> wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > > I don't know what transpired between Kodak and Olympus, but they should
    > > go back to them. The images from their CCDs were at least different from
    > > the competition. As it is now, they are similar to the APS offers but
    > > not as good, solely because of size.

    >
    > Olympus and Kodak fell out because Kodak was unable to supply a
    > competent sensor with more than 5 MP. Kodak presented a series of 8
    > MP sensors with very high noise that almost killed off Four Thirds.
    > The format survived only because Panasonic came in to the market and
    > supplied Olympus with competent sensors.
    >
    > It would be perfectly understandable if Olympus never dealt with Kodak
    > again after that. Olympus owes Panasonic a debt of gratitude for
    > saving Four Thirds - and also for developing the Micro Four Thirds
    > format which now provides Olympus with the majority of its income from
    > interchangeable lens cameras.



    "Bruce" and his delusions of grandeur! He believes he knows what's best,
    for the world's photographic industry.

    Now, if only, somebody would listen to him...

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2011
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Al Dykes
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,250
    Tony Spadaro
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. JohnR
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    605
    Dave Herzstein
    Oct 19, 2004
  3. Mike

    How Do I Reduce Pixel Count

    Mike, Oct 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    2,053
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 9, 2006
  4. Alfred Molon

    Why is the pixel count growing so slowly?

    Alfred Molon, May 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    135
    Views:
    2,064
    Roger (K8RI)
    Jul 8, 2007
  5. Brian McCrary
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,976
    Brian McCrary
    Jun 6, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page