Panasonic plans for Four thirds SLR development?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Stacey, Jan 14, 2005.

  1. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    Stacey, Jan 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Stacey

    TAFKAB Guest

    It may also mean that the 4/3 market isn't big enough to support two
    manufacturers, and unless they enter into a joint venture, it doesn't make
    sense ecomomically to market two separate cameras and systems. Ideally, we'd
    have both manufacturers marketing competing equipment, along with a few
    others (maybe). Right now, the 4/3 market is Olympus, and little else. It's
    a very nice system, but I don't think it's achieved sufficient marketplace
    traction yet, and it's very limited to competing systems from Nikon and
    Canon.
     
    TAFKAB, Jan 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    My thinking is panasonic is looking to make a Dslr like they have done with
    their rangefinder via leica. Could be that Leica is looking at this as
    well?

    My feeling is at some point more MP is going to be less and less important
    unless they make printers that can show a difference from files larger than
    250-300DPI. How many people want larger than 16X20 prints from their
    images? I'm getting 11X14's from 8MP at -close- to 250DPI straight from the
    camera. My hope is that rather than continue trying to get more and more
    MP, the manufacturers start working on better quality from the same size
    sensors they already have. More dynamic range (which some sensors already
    are doing) or less noise (which others are doing) or combine both together?

    I also wonder why we are still using these bayer pattern single chip sensors
    rather than something more like the 3CCD setup the better video cameras
    have. Someone who is heavy into video like panasonic might bring this to
    still imageing? It can only help to have some other big player getting into
    the Dslr marketplace, maybe with a fresh perspective.

    I don't believe that the 4/3 size sensor is a "dead end", look at the MP
    they have gotten out of smaller sensors and the way technology has changed
    in the past. I can't see why the next version sensors couldn't have the
    same MP with less noise etc etc. Only time will tell where this ends up.
     
    Stacey, Jan 15, 2005
    #3
  4. 16MP is nice: 250 dpi at 13x19 (this is significant, since 13x19 printers
    are relatively affordable), and 200 dpi at 16x24. (200 dpi looks pretty
    decent as long as you stay a foot or so away, which is about the closest
    people ever get to big prints.)

    It's not clear at what point the difference kicks in for 8MP vs. 16.7MP, but
    at A4, 11MP is noticeably better than 6MP, so it's probably 11x14 for 16MP
    vs. 8MP. The extra res can really help on detail and texture.

    Your point that 4/3 matches standard US print sizes is well taken, but for
    A4 (and 13x19), 2:3 loses about 8% of its pixels whereas 4/3 loses about 6%.
    together?

    More DNR and less noise are exactly the same thing. (Look it up in an
    engineering textbook.)

    You only get those by using larger pixels. At least according to Roger
    Clark, the cameras are already essentially photon noise limited.
    The mathematics of discrete sampling are the limit. It turns out that you
    _must_ use a low-pass filter for correct imaging (no Moire). What that means
    is that you can't do significantly better than Bayer with three-color
    sampling, since Bayer gets nearly the same luminance information as
    three-color sensors do. (Bayer gets a similar balance between luminance and
    color resolution as the human eye, so improvement in color resolution beyond
    Bayer wouldn't be detectable.)

    Basically, Bayer is flipping amazing. A brilliant idea.
    It sure looks like a dead end to me: once you are photon noise limited, you
    can't do any better, and (if Roger is correct on this) we're already pretty
    much there.

    And even if there's more to be squeezed out of smaller pixels, larger pixels
    will always do even better. Larger formats are always better. You, of all
    people, should know that.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 15, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.