The Japanese site DC.watch interviewed Panasonic manager to talk about the present and future of photography.
– High Megapixel cameras are coming (from all manufacturers). Megapixel race will never go away says Panasonic
– Panasonic is working on 6K and 8K video recording. 8K will come before 2020 (Olympic year).
– The ultimate “dream” is to beat the human eye performance
– There is the potential to use pure electronic shutter only
– Micro Four Thirds is the perfect sensor size for Panasonic. But they not rule out to create a second larger sensor size system.
– A medium format camera from Panasonic is highly unlikely to happen 🙂
190 Responses
A camera which can handle 8k would most likely be able to handle organic sensor as well. So I fully understand the video priority strategy that Pana has taken.
Organic sensor?
I believe it, when I see it, until then its nothing but vaporware…
I am sure when it would arrive, it would be yesterday’s tech already for the geeks
So there you have it. 4k is just SOOO yesterday and I’m going to get a BMPCC. And a very big thank you to this site for letting me know there is no use waiting for 2k RAW on a hybrid camera
Unfortunately the BMPCC has moire and false-color issues that can make for disappointing shots in tree leaves, architecture, certain fabrics and surface water. This detracts from the perceived benefit of using a 4:2:2 or Raw codec. The GH4 has achieved much more consistent results with less noise, similar dynamic range and has better edge fidelity than the BMPCC. I wanted to love the Blackmagic cam but the debayering issues and moire were just too much to overcome for professional use.
I want to film underwater and so the possibility of doing some quite extreme grading is important and that is why I would prefer the BMPCC to the GH4, at least judging from the samples I have seen. Horses for courses I guess.
8k video = death of high fps need for sports.
Not necessarily. Video tries to run near 1/framerate for shutter speed in order to gather the most light. Thus, 1/30 second for US television. Not exactly good for extracting stills. Sure, you could crank that up to a minimum of 1/500 (most pro stills shooters are at 1/1000 most of the time), but now you’ve lost four stops of light. So you’d better have an f/1 lens on that 8K camera ;~).
1/30s video with silly blur effect in 8k resolution?! It looks stupid even for 4k.
Its time for crispy lean frames worthy of the bandwidth the consume.
If you want blur leave it to a smart player to smooth the action for us as a extra feature!!
Can’t you read out ten 1/300 second exposures and merge them? Or is the problem that because video has those 1/30 second of time for the exposure of each frame, video can get by with slower lenses and smaller sensors and thus allowing to extract good 1/300 stills from them would require a much more expensive (aka faster) lens.
If you had 10 1/300 second exposures and merged them you’d still have the same motion in them as in a 1/30 exposure.
Which is what you’d want for the video output. But since you also have the 1/300 s frames, you can extract a sharp still from it as well.
Okay, I see where you’re going here, but the problem is that you still need a faster lens than you did when you were shooting 1/30 second.
Well , finally interview with Pana .
Looks like Pana going to increase MP in it’s sensor , a welcome move .
The ultimate dream is to beat the human eye performance most likely referring to it’s still imaging standard .
Only the Organic tech can guarantee such outcome , suggesting Pana still working in the 88dB sensor even though it’s in uncertain development status .
A turning point might happen anytime .
At least , it is ambitious than what Olympus said in it’s interview .
maybe but somehow Olympus path of thngs they do,is more interesting to follow imo,if its better thats a different story.
The Sony Pregius Global Shutter CMOS sensor is much more tangible than Organic fertilizer sensor.
http://www.ptgrey.com/white-paper/id/10795
Thanks for the info .
Impressive even slightly lower in DR ( 73dB ) .
Just get yourself an old 5D1, a couple of lenses and start taking real pictures. No need to bother with toy systems for an advanced photographer like you.
Again they are simply telling us what we know will happen sooner or later. Anyone reading these fora knows all this. But they are thinking in Japanese terms … 8k in Europe ?
Many here don’t even enjoy 720p TV broadcasting.
People are still sitting behind CRT TVs (aven B/W) and some never even heard of HD.
I am 100% in favor of it all … hopefully computer power and especially storage can keep up with 8K by then.
CRT..BW TV……where do live?
Russia? 🙂
no many russians are ahead of me, in their materialism.
Russia, no … Belgium :-).
It all depends, but we, photo-nerdies, tend to forget there’s a lot of people out there who don’t give a d*mn about tech in general, or, simply can’t afford to stay in the (MP) race !
This holds true for most countries/cultures I reckon (although there will be exceptions for sure).
but a crt or even bw tv, come on, spoil your self a bit at least.
Resolution can be a slippery slope.
I believe the m4/3 format has done well in holding to the 16mp resolution. Chasing after Canikon could be time not-so-well spent.
No question that a market exists for high resolution devices, but this should not be the grounds on which m4/3 should compete.
If Panasonic wants to compete in the resolution race, they should bring a bigger horse. Give us a format that builds on the m4/3 platform.
Why not? There is still quite a lot of space that resolution can improve results. Extra resolution is helpful for people who print big. Also your images will be more ‘future proof’. Think about video, when no one could stream full hd and many were saying that’s too much res for video. People who could shoot full hd and did it, could use their old footage a lot better and longer.
You don’t bring a small horse to a big horse race.
Yeah yeah, m43 is only for amateurs and is not capable enough for serious work. We heard this a lot already.
For me personally m43 and it’s high quality glass opens a lot of windows. Especially looking forward to 300mm f4. But higher mp would more than welcome for croping and large prints over 36inches.
Slow down, you may have heard it, but have you understood it? It’s true and it might change your photography. Given the prices, anyone half serious ought to go out and try superior systems that cost a fraction of this.
I’d also like to point out superior systems for half serious photographers that cost a fraction of the cost.
I have no idea what they are, but I’d still like to point them out.
Hopefully you understand and appreciate the wisdom of those of us that understand these things.
Keep looking, you may find an answer. Until then, take my advice and don’t buy any m43 products: they are junk for the money.
I urge you all to heed our vague and unsubstantiated accusations.
Ignore the awards and glowing reviews. Shun the many fantastic photos available to you.
M43 is junk (for the money) and the fact that we typed it proves it.
Only superior systems for half serious photographers are worth the money. Trust us.
Exactly. But I will say more: don’t trust us, try things for yourselves instead. You will never buy one of these toys again. Be particularly wary of glowing reviews, they are usually paid for.
Spot on, brother. Canon & Nikon have huge marketing budgets. I hear their employees post on message boards of other manufacturers and pepper them with vague attacks and ridiculous claims. Apparently they use many different anonymous names! Very sneaky.
Anyway, what were those superior systems for half serious photographers that cost a fraction? I kind of forgot.
But I do know you and I take tons of superior pictures with those superior systems.
Get with it people!
Do you take superior pictures?
You’re being modest. You know It’s impossible not to take superior pictures with that superior system for half serious photographers at a fraction of the cost. Remember the one you mentioned above?
What was the name of it again?
And thats why every pro only uses medium format…oh wait most don’t!
I guess the FF guys with their “small horses” didn’t get the news. But I’m sure you can teach them the error of their ways…
There aren’t any MF horses in the race!
MF is like a dinosaur, there in the line of extinction. The 35mm format (FF) makes more sense today than it did in the days of film—when MF was essential to most of the pros.
I see, simply inflexible mind, pointless to discuss further.
That’s not true. I participate because I’m to to learn from others perspectives—that’s how I grow.
But your strategy for argument is to put words in my mouth with: “And thats why every pro only uses medium format…oh wait most don’t!”
Then you followed up with sarcasm: “I guess the FF guys with their ‘small horses’ didn’t get the news.”
Then you escalated to outright rudeness with: “But I’m sure you can teach them the error of their ways…”
So, what does that tell you about your mind?
Perhaps you should look at the history of photography and learn then.
Ever since photography was invented as the technology has improved then the mainstream format has got smaller.
For the enthusiast from large film glass plates through various roll films to 35mm and then APSC film.
For casual shooters who weren’t interested in photography it went from 120 film to 127 film then 126 film through to 110 film size each generation getting smaller. Now it is tiny phone sensors
If you said FF/35mm has replaced medium format as a niche product I would agree with you. As only 7% of interchangeable lens camera sales are FF that probably is the equivalent to medium format sales back in the 1960s and 1970s.
Fanboys are dumb, m43 fanboys are even dumber coz they are desperate.
MF was not essential to most pros in the days of film. 35mm film was the predominant format.
Right, go have a discussion with all the studio owners in the days of film; go talk to the wedding photographers in the days film.
FF and APS-C will soon be the dinosaur in line for extinction.
Even today a vast majority of images are taken by cellphones and cameras with tiny sensors. When Iso gets better and better while MP get higher and higher who wants to lug around a huge APS-C or FF camera when they don’t have to?
And they won’t have to anymore… The vast majority don’t even today…
I sold my APS-C and FF gear because *that* didn’t make any sense today. I do have my MF gear next to my m43 because artistically that at least makes sense but for everything else, m43 is already there beating the pants of APS-C and FF and you don’t even know it…
until its too late…
🙂
PS: So far none of my clients complained that I shoot with m43 than with a FF camera (APS-C is an abortion). Quite the opposite actually, as I can easily carry more cameras/glass and always have the right tool for the job on hand and therefore am actually better off…
Your clients? Didn’t I tell you already not to mention our business in public?
You got clients? Have you got a website too? LOL.
And you don’t bring a turtle to a horse race. A tiny sensored, overpriced turtle 🙂
if you watch any high high resolution format upclose , you will enjoy the extra details, I guess thats the trend for the peoples who like to do that. Its the easiest way to impress with new cameras , more cool to say you have 30+ MP, though imo its even more cool to show off with a super long tele lens. A model who switches to nude before even asked is kindoff cool too. Let it all just come, makes no sense anymore to complain.
More resolution is always better because with good light it means more detail and in bad light you can downsample and still retain good high iso.
Well, there is already quite a lot of proof that pixel density doesn’t really matter for high iso. At same iso and resolution noise would be almost identical if sensor tech is on same level. But as many know, sensor also can be tweaked to perform better at high iso by sacrificing a bit of low iso performance and vise versa.
Exactly, therefore more pixels are better.
But if you downsample noisy pixels you get pretty much the same effect as having bigger pixels which “downsample” for you.
8K will be the moment when video resolution equals or even exceeds still resolution. It will totally change our perception because it will make possible total immersion: While HD or even 4K screens can’t exceed the FOV of the human eye without loosing too much resolution, 8K can do the trick, much like the IMAX movie theaters. So expect giant screens in our living rooms and a totally different style of image composition.
Totally agree!
There won’t be giant screens in living rooms anytime soon. The domestic viewing distances for 4K to make a difference are both idiotic and impractical. For 8K they are insane. No doubt we will soon get the wind-bags going on about how much better 8K will look down sampled to 1080P.
Aside from any of that, very, very few people would be prepared to invest in the computing resources needed to deal with 8K.
“Aside from any of that, very, very few people would be prepared to invest in the computing resources needed to deal with 8K.”
Thats the worst thing. And 8K video doesnt mean better than 2K/4K if the output is not clear, smooth and artifact free. There are too many messed up videos in hi-res already floating the web.
No, the worst thing is something called bandwidth. No broadcast medium can handle 8K. 1080P is almost a struggle for satellites, 4K is just an experimental dalliance that a few Satellites are playing with for the tech cred.
A single 8K broadcast would need 500Mbps. I have 7. Some lucky few people have 100mbps on fiber. Does any sane person think that 500mbps connections will be common within even 10 years?
About the only way to distribute 8K content is via TB hard drives. An 8K camera is going to require the user to wear a backpack containing a large RAID HD array with a big battery pack to power them.
Bandwidth, like transistor size (Moore’s Law), is actually predictable. At least at the “what is possible level.” The problem we have is that we have greedy companies that have been mostly deregulated driving the car, so they do what makes them the most money, and that usually involves being behind what’s possible in terms of bandwidth. Especially when they know that whatever they invest in today in terms of infrastructure has to be replaced only a few years down the pike.
Moore’s law started failing several years ago and is no longer valid.
You are right, bandwidth is predictable. I predict there won’t be sufficient for 8K anytime soon. I agree, what is possible and what we are likely to get are totally different numbers. 8K in the domestic environment is not going to happen within a decade. I doubt even 2 decades and probably never – because it just isn’t necessary.
I can’t get good 1080 picture due to overcompression. Cable picture is lousy. Streamed videos are almost as bad. Getting rid of cable forcing 500 channels on us will help more than 4K.
50-55″ 4K television costs today only 899-1299€. I bought one (1199€ for 55″) and its just pure magic with 200Hz. E-M1 video looks phenomenal from it and far better than even bluray movies.
He said ‘giant’. For 8k in a domestic environment you are going to need screens approaching the size of entire walls. For my current viewing distance I would need an 80″ screen at the bare minimum and more like 100″ in reality, just for 4K. Samsung’s 105″ LCD with 4K is rumoured to be $70,000.
The price for an 8K screen – which would have to be much larger than that to make any sense – would be greater than the cost of most houses. I do not think this is a tech where the price is going to fall much anytime in the next 10+ years. The screens required for 8k are so big you would need to build the house around them or take the roof off to lower them in with a crane.
Screens will become thinner, you will roll them together like a carpet and fix them to the wall. The price will come down to current 4k screens.
Viewing distance is not an argument, in fact the PROPORTIONAL viewing distance of 8k screens will be much smaller, you won’t want to see the edges of the screen while watching.
Transmission will be solved in parts by better bandwith an more efficient codecs, think about h265.
Now watch the timeline: HD was introduced around 2005, 4K leaped on the market this year. It should be beyond 2020 before all parts for the entire 8k chain have come together.
Dream on. We won’t even have pervasive 4K content consumption by 2020. SD channels still outnumber HD ones 10:1 or greater, even now.
FHD videoprojection makes more sense if we are talking about huge sizes.
Well Skyfall was shot on 2k and they made an IMAX version.
Uh, not exactly. To actually drive each “pixel” of today’s 4K displays (not tomorrow’s), you would need a digital camera of about 32mp. And it would have to be non-Bayer, at that.
This is my biggest problem with what’s happening at the moment. We have mismatching input and output systems, and that steals a great deal of color rendering, acuity, and more.
Most biggest breakthrough would be global shutter. No worrying during time/hyperlapse, super high flash sync, no shutter shock and much more. Really hope they can implement this soon.
I think this is a minor plus too, sure it gives advantages but does it make that much of a difference except a specific progression.
I think a global shutter is very important, jello effect is already big on most 4K cameras, on 6K or 8K cameras it can be severe.
i am no expert on this(on nothing actually) but would it really matter if you watch the footage in playback rather then checking it frame by frame.
Yes, here’s real world example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYxQ_kBrDA
I was just searching to post this video, a very good example.
Post one of yours, it will be even more interesting. I need some laughter.
I would be happy to make a short film entitled: “A day of a Troll”
Please go ahead. Don’t forget to switch on the camera first.
Don’t forget to pull your trousers up first.
If you can spare several months of Canon payment for trolling other brands we can have a deal, otherwise it may prove difficult to “switch on the camera”.
No videos huh? I thought so. Talk is cheap…
Not in your case, I bet you get a lot of money from daily trolling.
it’s only 20 grand a month, but it’s ok as a temporary fix. I would even do it for free, I hate swindlers.
So you got no videos huh? I bet you don’t got a ding dong, either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nS-QeM2ne8
I wish you a happy new year!
ok thats a clear example. But still, somehow i dont find it that disturbing as its a motion and not something you would record long time. But I have to admit I would never do such recordings
And it’s not only video that is affected. Read up on leaf shutter vs focal plane shutter and their impact on flash photography for example. Global electronic shutter would simply allow you to take photos that now require insanely expensive gear. That may not affect you personally if you don’t use flash or don’t need fast flash sync times, but that doesn’t change the fact that those are real problems that real photographers have to deal with. Problems that can simply be solved by global electronic shutter. That’s why I think having this feature is not a minor gimmick but a real game changer. Not sure if it hasn’t got any downsides I don’t know about, thought.
However, I don’t expect global shutter to appear in mass market consumer cameras anytime soon. If it comes, it’s gonna be introduced in the most expensive flagship models.
with all respects, i do understand or at least i try to inderstand. but somehow i feel pity for people who urgently need such thing and dont seem to be able to do the thing they want right now. I see to many posts about the wish to be able to do some things which are hard or impossible to realise, that is how i feel all those wannahaves, organic,global,200FPS,8K etc…some are such much busy with this, tat i am starting to wonder what I actually would wish in the things I do, I am I that wishless? Oh yeah wouldnt mind another lens.
i cant use long lenses with video because of rolling shutter… its not about stabilization… also the gopro footage would have been OK with a CCD camera… i know because i have several CCD video cameras still… global shutter is the only thing in my wish list…
so te vibrating would not be solved with stabilisation? video is so weird sometmes. I think Go pro user are mostly guys where the panning or fast moving video requires different need then alow changing video sontent, more kind of MTV pace 🙂
Sure, I get that. The drive for new stuff among some users is insane, frankly (like the obsession with organic sensor as some sort of holy grail for example). I was just trying to point out that global shutter in a consumer camera (or at least in the higher segment of it) would be a much bigger deal than most people would think. That’s all.
I personally don’t care all that much, I’ve got what I need and I don’t plan on buying new camera until my E-M10 starts to limit what I can do (not gonna happen any time soon). I don’t do video (if I did, I wouldn’t get E-M10), and my first real flash is only gonna arrive any day now. So I don’t even need global shutter. It’s just that I recognize how important that can be, especially for Panasonic and its users (most GH4 owners are probably heavy into video).
And yeah, I wouldn’t mind another lens as well. I’m really waiting for the what the Nokton 10.5 will show us. I’m probably gonna salivate over that thing. Too bad it’s probably gonna be out of my reach.
Damn it! It seems much worse than on Olys cameras? One would suggest that these issues cant be real in 2014. Global shutter may be a key to better video recording on MILC.
the big problem is vertical camera movement… ruins the shot… a little example here from gopro…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN6xw4b4nkw
okay but i guess you could have used a camera with IS at least…. A go pro is not really ideal with vibrations imo
Anyone shooting action cam footage should check out ProDAD’s tools.
https://www.prodrenalin.com/prodrenalin/
https://www.prodrenalin.com/mercalli-v4-sal-plus/
As if jello was your problem… Sigh.
No, trolling is my problem and I can’t stand it!
Depends on what you do. For anyone, who’s using off camera flashes it will give really big advantage over usual shutter. Even better than leaf shutter. But in any case, it’s certainly not minor plus.
Very good news. I pray for a GH5 with 6K in late 2015 or early 2016.
So, do you think God is listening?
I hope so!
They should figure out how to put global shutter into their cameras, a lot of people would appreciate that a lot. A GH5 with global shutter would be a killer, that’s for sure.
As for 8K, Photo mode could actually be useful, but for video, and in consumer grade camera at that, that’s a bit of an overkill. My bet is that they are not talking about consumer cameras here.
8K before 2020 is 6 years from now, enough time spent with 4K cameras in TVs by them.
I would rather they spend some time on a BSI sensor with PDAF so we could get some CAF performance. CAF is worse is 4k than it is at 1080 so I can’t imagine how poor 8k would be.
4K video is reasonable whereas 8K is truly overkill. It would be more appropriate for high frame rate still photography than video mastering. The pixel throughput of 8K @ 30P is the same as 4K @ 120P, so perhaps we’ll see 4K overcranking before too long.
We are talking about target year 2020. Maybe by then octane breathing be 64cores computers are going to be a banality.
It’s not the CPUs that are the issue, it’s the content delivery systems, in particular the bandwidth of moving huge amounts of data around to where the customer wants it. What is tending to happen as data increases is that compression also increases. Thus, the benefit of a true 8K system over a 4K system gets muddied.
We already see this today. Cable systems have to use lots of data, so they compress heavily. Now look at the over-the-air digital HD TV broadcast from your local station: less compression and much more HD.
I have no tv at home, I did not think of that.
That’s a joke right? Give me a current camera that even does FullHD @120fps…
I see that as very strange also. Samsung NX1 and Gopro Hero4 does 120fps in 1080p, but the quality is lower than in the 60p mode (and I think with no sound).
What I meant by overcranking was 4K/48P or 60P in the next GH camera.
“– Micro Four Thirds is the perfect sensor size for Panasonic. But they not rule out to create a second larger sensor size system.”
I’m calling it, they have a APS-C camera in the works. *fingers crossed*
I also feel that going higher in Megapixels for a four thirds sensor, would be a Noisy mess after iso 800. I would rather a totally brand new 12mpxl sensor, with better DR. M43 cannot compete in this Megapixel war. The sensor is just too small.
some mft lenses can fill the whole aps image circle, but most cant fill it . So I wonder if it would sell.making a whole new aps line of lenses sounds ridiculous imo
Leica created a whole new mount for thier APS-C line. They can use that. Sure, profit will be loss, but if done right, with the video quality that Fuji doesn’t have, would make them competitive.
You can see a Fuji X-like system, with excellent image quality AND excellent video? I can.
its obvious the Fuji like the X-T1 gives better stillls ouput regarding the noise performance. But there is so many talk from the people in general on the Fuji which goes beyond the iso advantage, that its hard to keep talking about it without hearing yes or no and words like fanboy . Such discussions mostly end up in infinity loops of arguing. But I wouldnt mind the system you mentioned. I just dont see it happen.
No, it’s just a polite way to say “we don’t care at the moment”. And why should they… the difference between APS-C and M43 is so minimal it doesn’t justify R&D and marketing costs, especially with many APS-C systems already on the market. Sensor size is not why camera sales are declining. If this was the case, ordinary people would be rushing to buy Sony A7s.
“Minimal”??
HA.
MFT cannot compete with the Xtrans sensor Fuji has. You may get close in certain daylight, but at Night? HAHA! The Noise from any MFT camera is horrible.
Heck, In some cases, MFT sensors show noise even in the daylight!
But, of course, it can, esp at base ISO, where I actually find M43 better.
But, by all means, don’t let reality get in the way.
You find it better? Then it must be… LOL
Right? Lol!
It’s not even close in certain conditions, just like FF is mostly better than APS-C, MF better than FF, Etc…
Fanboys are dillusional.
The GH4 has more DR than a 5DMIII at ISO 200. so in good light situations which are many, MFT is better than one particular FF camera. Not to mention, have fun carrying around that dorky looking FF camera on vacation with it’s massive 70-200 lens.
At ISO 200?
What about at..
400
600
800
1000
1200
……….?
Excuses for days.. To say the GH4 is better at one ISO is Laughable.
He he he fanboys crack me up. For the record: GH4 is inferior at every ISO, and by a far cry. The lens is as large as an equivalent 35-100 F 1.4. Whoops they don’t do one? Of course not, m43 is a toy system.
Which fanboys? I only see one biased person here: the notorious Olympus hater, to which I am responding here.
Get real and get act together and realize, that the advantages of the m4/3 format: best size – IQ benefits, is unbeaten.
ALLCap is the fanboy of the fanboys… ha ha. Only a dellusional wouldn’t notice that.
NOBODY even mentioned Olympus but you. So tell me, who’s the fanboy and Troll of Posters…?
Go look in a mirror for the answer.
Not really, m43 has the worst price/quality ration on the market. Some even call it the photographic con of the decade.
The actual photographic con of the decade is internet experts extolling their invisible photographic prowess.
Cannot compete? You bet! Fuji would better abandon the problematic X-Trans sensor concept in general, as it causes more problems (detail rendition) than it helps.
But X-Trans applies noise reduction during the de-mosaiacing process.
Basically, baked into RAW noise reduction that you can’t turn off because of how the RAW is generated from the sensor data.
Take a Fuji X-Trans sensor, cut it down to M4/3 size, and the result would be basically identical. But I will pas on X-trans myself.
APS-C is for beginners and amateurs that only fool around. Real pros use medium format.
I’m hoping you’re wrong. If Panasonic is going to do a larger sensor system, it likely should be full frame. Why? Because the slightly less than one-stop differential between m4/3 and APS makes for a very hard marketing problem. Two stops is easier to sell.
I agree. APS is too small a step up in size to make a difference. For me APS has been relegated to the sidelines. FF and m4/3 are my tools of choice.
The difference of the image quality and image rendition between m4/3 and APS-C is so miniscule, that it would not make any sense for Panasonic to create an APS-C system. In fact, APS-C would be a mistake, because lenses tend to be bigger than their m4/3 counterparts with no gain in image quality as a reward for the size penalty. Also, APS-C lenses, which are forced to compete in size for their m4/3 counterparts (like the E-Mount 16-50mm pancake zoom), are rather mediocre in image quality.
So, Panasonic is completely right: m4/3 is the system size – image quality sweet spot. In order to create another system (which would be quite risky anyway), it needs to differentiate itself from m4/3 much more than a mere APS-C system could do. So, if Panasonic is going for a bigger sensor, it has to be at least the 35mm format, with at least 28 mpx (in order to compete with Samsung NX1).
You’re such a fan…
Put the best M43 camera with the P/L25mm Lens against the XE-2 and the 35mm Lens in the Daytime and I’ll wager the Fuji will come out on top, Every time…
Put those same cameras in a shootout at night, and the Fuji combo will SMOKE the M43 camera!
https://photographylife.com/olympus-om-d-e-m1-vs-fuji-x-t1-iso-comparison
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-mirrorless-camera/
-Scroll down to the couple sitting in the grass. You can still see the Plaid pattern in the man’s shirt, yet you can’t see NOTHING but noise in the EM1 pic!
But, hey.. Shoot what you got. However, you’ll only get laughed at, thinking M43 can compete with the APS-C sensor. Maybe Canon’s APS-C sensor, but that’s it.
Why, is the Canon sensor inferior?
some of them are. They’re slightly smaller than the other APS-C sensors out there, and depending on the body, Older.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C#mediaviewer/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg
awh, ok, but that’s nothing much, really.
Giving people crap they never asked for, instead of giving the people what they want. Great motto Panasonic, and every other camera company in the world. So no low light performance or better focusing, just better video and high megapixels meaning iso 1600 is as high as we’ll ever be able to go without making our images look crappy. A+
I’m ok with that. I for one would prefer a few more pixels over high ISO. Giving a choice to consumers would be good. Are we talking about a 24MP camera that performs like a GX1?
That would be great except for the dynamic range. ISO performance on the GX1 was okay for me.
yeah,GX1 was very good camera,it had good ISO performance(better than GF1/GF2 about 2 stop but GX7/EM5/GH4 had ISO better than GX1 about 2/3 stop).
if panny release 20++ mpx and ISO performance same as GX1 i will buy,
more mpx make more color bit and higher dynamic range by default.
Technically, most people don’t know what they want until it becomes a product and they can see what it actually does. “People” are not good “product designers.”
That said, we’re getting a lot of iteration for the sake of iteration. Moreover, we’re way ahead of ourselves on the video side, as we’ve got an input mechanism (4K video cameras) that really has no widespread output mechanism that matches (e.g. 4K content delivery). It’s a classic chicken-and-egg problem, but my personal perception is that the industry is laying eggs that will take a long time before they become chickens.
Still, “people” have voted. They’re just not buying cameras in the quantities they used to, so something has to change. I just wish it weren’t iterative changes but bigger leaps into areas not yet explored.
I think they’re laying those eggs because they seem to be running out of new ideas.
I think they are laying eggs made out of gold that most sane people are not purchasing because they have discovered all of this new gear has become stale and stagnant at prices that are not worth it at the moment.it will take larger differences in technology to get a lot of people to buy new cameras unlike when digital first started out.
No no, the eggs are made of dung but gold-plated.
5 years ago Panasonic started with:
12MP Sensors
G1: No video
GF1: 720P
GH1: FHD (AVCHD)
Since then the resolution went up to 16MP, 4K video, much higher bitrates and higher ISO.
This developement is an ongoing process.
In stills, we are used to pixelnumbers which are so high, that there is almost no way to see a picture with all of them. We use them to improve quality by downsampling or we crop parts of the picture. It’s going to be the same with video.
People like me, used to take analog slides just the way they came out of the camera, had to learn to use the additional room in pixels and bit per pixels to improve the results in postprocessing. This also is an ongoing process.
In the future, we will see, that it is possible to take a high MP sensor and get almost the same ISO by downsampling compared to a low MP sensor. On the other hand, it is not possible to upsample the result of the low MP sensor if used under normal light. Over all higher MP beats lower MP.
That would be true if there wasn’t a thing called noise floor.
But since there is, the bigger (and the less) the pixels, the better the DR and the better the SNR.
There are software tricks to get more resolution for those who really need it (like stacking to get superresolution) but for that to happen we need some some other improvements first. Global shutters and faster sensor readout seem like the most obvious ones in this particular case but there are biggers ones missing along most of the lines. IBIS is clearly another one…. 🙁
If you want to improve quality by downsamling (averaging or low pass filter) you need as much values to average as possible and you need noise.
I’m working in the area of measuremnts and analysing data. One common way to get higher resolution is to take better ad-converters. Another way is to take values in a much higher frequency and average them. This second method is much less expensive and gives much better results if there is statistically distributed noise in the signal which is large enough to produce differences in the lowest bits of the ad-converter. In cases when there is not much noise, it is better to add random noise to the signal.
The pixel on the sensor is not much different. To get better results you can average several small pixels to one larger or you can use a larger pixel. On the long run the smaller pixels will win because this is the more flexible solution. It also gives better color distribution and you have the choise between more resolution or better pixel quality.
I am not sure how adding more noise in the case of the sensor is any better. I mean, the better the data your start for downsampling the better, IQ image wise. Not sure I follow from your statistic discipline.
Usually, there is enough noise on the camera sensor, so you don’t need to add noise. Sometimes you will see steps in the monocrome blue sky and use some unsharpen or dithering to add noise and let the eye do the averaging.
In the area of measurements, it is more often the case that you have a slow changing value. Lets say an AD-converter with the resolution of 1 mV gives a large number of the value 1mV and then a large number of the value 2mV. Inbetween, you need to know if the real analog value is 1.4 or 1.5 but the sensor can’t do this on his own. With added noise, the sensor will give you all the time values jumping arround between 1 and 2 or even more. In the first place, this looks bad but the noise is statistically distributed and this means that the average of a larger number of values is closer to the real value. If the real value is 1.4 you will get more 1’s then 2’s. If you average enough values, you can get the difference between 1,400 and 1.401. You even can buy Multimeters with a resolution of 8 1/2 digits.
Unfortunately this amount of increased precision is not possible with camera sensors. You can measure a voltage as often as you want (many million times per second, if you need). But you can’t measure light that often because each pixel is just counting photons and the number is limited. It is still better to devide the photons on a larger number of pixels and add them with statistical methods if necessary.
Lots of people already said this but I can’t help to repeat: Give us a body capable of creating clean images at iso 1600-2000. We NEED that rather than MP.
My guess is the current tech of the sensors can’t provide that. So they turn to higher MP as something ‘new’ in the next MFT models.
I totally agree.
What if some people prefer landscape photography to indoor / night photography? Don’t you think they NEED better resolution and don’t care at all about ISO 1600?
Agreed. We used to get by with iso50 slide film for landscape shots. Tripods still work.
Then maybe they should go with a FF Camera, for better resolution. Most landscape photography is done on a tripod, so why not go big with a FF or MF camera? Why waste your time with M43? It’s an inferior Landscape camera to everything else.
Really? Ever shot with a mobile phone?
It’s you that is inferior to everything else…
I’ll have to agree again. MrAll is a loser that wastes his time on an m43 site, spreading hateness, consumed by his fanboism. He thinks photography is a soccer match.
Another ignorant comment, another bucket of anger… What does your mom say?
And what if they want to hike farther to where they can get a better vista but don’t want to lug along a heavy FF or MF camera?
A worse quality photo taken from a better viewpoint will always be better than a higher quality photo taken from a worse viewpoint.
The high iso from m43 with f2.8 lenses is fine. A FF has ~1.5 stops better high iso, so what would you prefer 0.5 stop better iso or 50% more megapixel?
The iso helps a little at night, but the megapixel help always and you still can downsample to get the same(ish) improvement in high iso.
(Hint: Only the fool chooses iso instead of mpix for equal technology)
Not really. If you need better ISO. FF has more like 2 stops better ISO and you make the assumption FF can’t go higher MP count.
No… For the readers: try it yourself, this sort of donkeyman cannot be trusted.
Maybe a Camera with a native ISO 50-80, would be a good beginning to produce really clean files.
More pixels, for what ? More noise at high iso and bigger files ? And you need top lenses to resolve such details. give us clean 1600~3200iso, global shutter, no aa filter, in body is, better dr. Make partnership with sigma and tamron. In aps-c there is very good and cheap tamrom/sigma zoom, but in µ4/3, only some fixed third party lenses.
+1
Here is a shortcut for you: move up to APS and enjoy the superior quality and the lower prices.
And lug the big lenses while having old rubbish sensors with bad APS-C lenses (Canon), laughably bad implementations (Nikon, image buffer…hellooooo), horrible body ergonomics (Sony, Fuji) so what is there exactly superior?
The only thing interesting APS-C these days is the Samsung NX-1 because its mirrorless (EVF rules!) and has great specs, but the lenses just aren’t there yet (or anytime soon).
In short: APS-C is a stupid idea!
Either m43, FF or just go MF, but APS-C is the inbetween that does not excel at anything…
Now I’ll have to agree…
Horrible body ergonomics Fuji and Sony? You nuts? We could forgive Sony. Sony had bad ergonomics until recently (A6000 has nice ergonomics). But Fuji? Right.
You are so wrong I would not know where to start. You obviously don’t know cameras. Are you looking for acceptance? Are you trying to give us a free laugh?
I see you are a boy who knows what he wants. Does your mom like you?
What a load of rubbish!
You can get super clean iso with a sensor that does 10×10 pixel but who wants that?
More pixels is *always* better without drawbacks at all, if well implemented.
More pixels means better details with good light (lens resolution diminishing returns is no issue up to >80mpix and most m43 lenses *are* top lenses) and you can still downsample at night for better iso. So whats the drawback? Bigger files? Can pay 1k+$ for a camera body but can’t spare that 10$ for a bigger sd card? Then just downsample in the camera and save the small file (which then has better iso, if well implemented), but oooh… you don’t want to right? Thats because more pixels is better….
And as for the rest you mentioned, no aa filter is standard these days (at least for olympus) and might not be the best for panasonic as their cameras are videocentric and moire might be an issue, IBIS was in the gx7 but panasonic decided against it (its not as good as oly 5-axis ibis and couldn’t do video), dynamic range is overrated (unless its +3-4 stops which won’t happen anytime soon) and m43 in a good spot for now and why partner with other companies for zooms? M43 has an abundance of zoom lenses from 2 companies…how many do you want? And they’d only make adapted large APS-C lenses too!
In short: Are you nuts?
You are exaggerating when you say a 10×10 sensor. There’s not that much difference between a 16 MP and a 20 MP sensor but there is an immense one between a 16MP and 10×10. Implementing without drawbacks is exactly the issue – it’s not that easy. I don’t know where you get the idea that lens resolution is a non issue until 80MP> Where are you getting this?
Where are you getting there are no drawbacks for more resolution “if well implemented.” This is not all free.
Shshsh… Temper, temper. OK, you are desperate m43 is going down, but you should really try to behave.
Whoa!, human eye resolution 900+Megapixel… may be good for security cameras and inner/outer space I guess.
Sensor tech is going to be (even more) awesome. People on the internet will complain about it.
Dear strangers, here’s the deal: Being overtly critical and contrarian doesn’t make you seem more insightful.
But expecting and demanding more than is provided for our slave earned dollars is common sense. There has been too much indifferent behaviour what comes to consumption of these planned obsolescence products.
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/09/27/10-awesome-professional-photographers-who-use-fuji-x-cameras-for-work/
That’s just 10… Let me know when you want more links to pros Using Fuji.
“real pros” also use ff. some even use phones. some (very few) might even use m43 in a pinch.
Oh, so basically you want to do a mulligan for the comment you made… Gotcha.
Here’s some more:
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/08/23/13-amazing-professional-photographers-who-use-mirrorless-cameras-on-the-job/
16K!
” But they not rule out to create a second larger sensor size system.”
Maybe a new FF line (m135?) jointly developed with Olympus?
Good thing I passed on the GH4, I’ll hold off for 8K
128K just to be safe~
y not 2048K?
Come one, don’t be greedy~=)
Panasonic should give us a good Vlog or C4k recording @30fps NOW for the GH4 because the LX100 and the FZ1000 are the best combo available and replace easily a gh4 with 12-35mm,20mm,35-100mm and 100-300mm for about 2300$ cheaper.
Correct me if I’m wrong for saying this, but having 4k alone won’t bring good results. You need good body + sensor + lens to get more out of it, correct? Think what a d810 + sigma 50 art could do with 4k, in comparison to say GH4 or LX100. I hope the brands making APS-C and FF cameras will wisen up to include the 4k in their cameras soon!
“real pros use medium format” oh wow ..
It’s a shame, but I think the 4k might not have enough time to pick up the pace. There aren’t many films in 4k yet. Only thing you “surely” watch in 4k is video made by videographers / enthusiasts / hobbyist or play 4k resolution video games with expensive gaming rig, but real movies / tv series there aren’t many yet..