Panasonic is going to announce the new G3 with 16 Megapixel in May. If you need one more explanation why Panasonic and Olympus are not going to stick at 12 Megapixel you might read this: We have been told that Samsung will launch a 18 Megapixel NX20 and NX200 in Summer and Sony’s new NEX-7 will have…drumming….a 24 Megapixel sensor!
As you see the Megapixel racing is still ongoing and it doesn’t sound like there is an end insight. Maybe next year Panasonic will make a 20 Megapixel sensor for the GH3?
More info about the upcoming cameras from the competition
NX20 and NX200 at MirrorlessRumors (Click here).
NEX-7 at SonyAlphaRumors (Click here).
84 Responses
I hate megapixels!
Then what? Film?
So basically you don’t need any camera made in the past 5 years then. 5MP should be enough for you. Or is that even too much for you? May be 3MP? May be 1MP? May be ONE very large and very sharp pixel?
10-12 good quality megapixels is fine for real world use…
but it doesn’t mean 20 good-quality megapixels can’t be better (naturally, 20 suck-ass megapixels would still suck).
but hey, if they can make 20 good-quality megapixels, i would take it.
Yes, but then they surely could make 10 even better megapixels. And I sure would like that! Imagine: high ISO, much better dynamic range…
The case for less megapixels is also in file sizes. The argument, that storage space is dirt cheap doesn’t count because that’s not the problem. Having to move those megabytes during processing is.
Oh, and the irony? Those people who claim they “need” 20 megapixels most likely don’t even print them but use them mostly to brag with their rubbish cat-shots on internet forums.
TC,
Alex H.
10-12mp, good ones, are more than enough for some people…but then we wont be talking about 4/3 sensors…at least not for now…
Sony need to deliver lenses capable of handling 24mp!
pete:
my thought exactly! their current line of lenses dont have the sharpness and quality needed for a 24mp sensor.
You know I hear this all the time. What print sizes are doable with 10 megapixels (not trying to be snarky here, btw)? My friend just had a show in a cramped bar, and the majority of her prints were 8×10. While they looked huge staring at them before they were framed and hung, they were really tiny when put together.
It seems that, for fine art photography at least, 11×14 is the absolute minimum, with 16x20s and 20x24s being the most common print sizes. Not sure of a 10 megapixel camera can make a sharp image at that size, but if so, then I agree with you. If not, well, then I guess fine art photographers will be sticking to film and full frame DSLRs.
Stupid..
What a thoughtful argument.
I know many will poo poo this, but I like more megapixels! Provided that they are sharp and useful megapixels and not just muddy and useless hype that doesn’t increase the resolution of the image.
I suppose we might find that it would be best to do what Nikon has done for years… have one model whose goal is maximum resolution and another model whose goal is best high-ISO performance. It’s hard to make everybody happy with one model.
Agree with you!!!
People immediately associate many pixels with low quality. And in some case they’re right. A P&S with 14 megpix is just ridiculous.
But what if technology enables good quality along with increasing pixel count?
After all, if you take the anti-megapixel argument to its logical conclusion, we should have a FF sensor that delivers ONE really really great pixel. Haha.
it just fill us your hard drive at a faster rate and slows up your editing programs / workflow…
There is very very little benefit to prints smaller than 30 by 20 inches in my real world experience.
Panasonic engineers have admitted that the increase in the GH2 pixel count was a reluctant marketing exercise…
TBH Non photographers see a camera and all they care about is the zoom factor and the Megapixel count. It’s all I ever get asked by your average Joe about my camera – “What zoom is that?” ‘None, it’s a 50mm prime’ cue lots of ‘you’re weird’ looks before “how many megapixels is it?” ‘None it’s a Film camera’, “Oh right coz my uncles got a 14Mp 30x compact camera he takes pictures of us at parties and it’s really really good…”
So what?
If someone can deliver more megapixels at good quality, is there something wrong with that?
(Note: I agree with you when they deliver more megapixels at LOW quality. But that doesn’t mean I rule out the possibility that someone can deliver more megapixels at a good quality. Of course there are probably limits to everything.)
24/4 = 6.
With so many MPX, I wouldn’t mind (in fact I would prefer) if the camera would do automatic (but proper) scale down of the RAW by factor 4 – to get 6MP picture, but with e.g. better DRs and ISOs.
I thought about MP race for some time and this is only what IMO all the MPS are good for: to be compressed into less but better MPS.
Edit1: What I’m trying to say here, is that we can’t win against marketing. But the engineering should at least do something useful with all the pixels.
Also, such excess of MPs might serve as a buffer for lens corrections too.
That’s what Fujifilm does with EXR sensors … ‘divide’ the sensor in a checkboard pattern, on the ‘white’ takes a shot with one sensivity, on the ‘black’ with other, you end up with a higher DR photo with half the resolution :]
Dividing by four a normal bayer color array could be used… It’s not a bad idea, 6MP’s are more than enough to print in A4 (if they are ‘good’ pixels)…
It’s called pixel binning, and Phase One does it on some of their newer backs with pretty impressive results.
Not sure how locked down the tech is with patents, but it is getting more and more viable for small format cameras with the megapixel race.
this is funny – when a rumor site links to other rumor sites as information sources – that sounds a bit ….well you think of an analogy ! You guys are really hurting for sources , no ?
You are funny. Both linked sites are from the same people than this one so… it’s the same source.
I think you are right about this. In fact I think panasonic does this already with their extended ISO setting. More detail in shadow area.
I think the extra megapixels will be used for dynamic range, not resolution.
The admin runs multiple rumor sites that address several different camera systems; finding sources doesn’t seem to be a problem.
Maybe before then, Panasonic will make some GH2 stock that you can actually buy in the USA!!
At some point the Law of Diminishing Returns must kick-in with regard to megapixels.
For all the fools that bought Pentium 4.
I think Alan is right. People without knowledge about cameras who are switching from P&S to Mirrorless or DSLR might find higher MP count attractive.
EQUALS GH2
The APS sensor in the Sony cameras has 50% more area than the m4/3 sensors. If you just scaled the GH2 sensor (same pixel size and pitch) by 50% you would go from 16MP to 24MP. I would be willing to bet that the Sony pixels will be at least as good as Panasonic, if not better.
The interesting thing is that FF is 4X the area which would equate to a 64MP sensor with the same tech.
This is significant, since 24MP is probably right at the limit* of what expensive (L class in Canon-speak) lenses can deliver. Sony’s engineers are basically saying to Canon and Nikon “Bring it!” and to pro photographers (i.e. Thom Hogan level) “We’ve got the goods, and you can actually carry it everywhere.”
If Sony can get really fast AF on the NEX, we might be looking at a very quick end to both traditional DSLRs and Canon/Nikon market dominance. Is this good news for m4/3? Maybe. If APS-C is the new FF, then m4/3 might be the new APS-C. In other words, lots of users who need good quality, but want to carry a package smaller than even a NEX. Provided, you know, that Panasonic/Olympus can actually make smaller cameras. In that world, however, lenses and bodies might have to be a lot cheaper.
In this context, I think it is significant that Fuji is patenting foveon-like sensors. We might be seeing the tipping point where bayer-matrix sensors are resolution limited, and where new designs are mandatory. (See the mirrorless rumors blog for that story.)
Will
*so I’ve heard from people who are better at reading MTF charts than I.
Many good point, Will frost 😉
Wrong, it’s Sony’s engineers saying “Yes, sir.” to marketroids running the company just like what happened inside Panasonic with GH2’s Marketing Pixel increase from GH1. (and making of that “3D” lens instead of something more useful)
You want even more masochistic level ergonomy?
Fro retaining ergonomy/functionality you can’t keep shrinking body size unless camera’s user is also shrinked to Asian child worker size.
Ergonomy of NEX with current bodies is horrible as body is too small compared to APS-C image circle optics so there’s nothing desirable in that direction of cutting away camera body from around sensor.
Or are also you wanting to give me reason for saying Sayonara to m4/3 and jumping to Canikon which still makes products for adult size users.
Changing sensor type doesn’t allow getting any more resolution out of same optics because when size of photosite drops to size of smallest detail drawn by lens it’s game over no matter whose sensor you have there. Sure foveon sensor captures better data per full RGB-pixel compared to bayer sensor but difference isn’t revolutionary.
What foveon type sensor might increase is sensitivity as it lacks bayer sensor’s RGB-filter which blocks major part of photons (those of wrong “colour” for that photosite) from reaching actual photosites on sensor. But again have we seen any sensitivity advantage from foveon sensor cameras?
24 MP on a compact-ish camera… I just can’t see the point, and I’d be shocked if the actual resolution was, say, 50% more than a Panasonic GH2 or twice an Olympus E5.
Ditto,
I am hoping Fuji makes a m4/3 Foveon sensor for Olympus
A 24MP 1.5x crop APS-C sensor has the same density as a 16mp 2x crop 4/3 sensor. So I hope Panasonic doesn’t try to compete with Sony be increasing MP to 20MP+.
Just a crazy idea : Wouldn’t it make sens for Sony which has the lead in sensors industry to stress magapix competition facing it’s potentially 2 main competitors in mirrorless market :
– Nikon which won’t be able to follow due to it’s sensor size choice
– 43 (Pany and Oly) which won’t be able to follow due to Pana technology gap
Sony would exhaust it’s followers in meaningless competition !
The right answer from Panasonic would consist in sticking on 12mp and invest both in good relevant research and… good communication ?
Maybe Sony is too big in that game ?
More pixels, less light per pixel, less quality…
Who would use mirrorless cameras to make giant posters anyway!!!???
You’d be amazed. I have a few poster size prints from my EP1 and G2 on my wall.
And your generalization is wrong. If it were correct, then 1 pixel would give you the best quality. So go out and buy yourself a 1 pixel camera.
Whatever your argument you have to admit that these new higher MP sensors are according to tests & reviews producing higher resolution figures. The GH1 multi aspect sensor produced higher resolution figures than any 12 MP APS-C out there with over 2300 lines of resolution until the new Sony sensor design with 16 MP and Pany countered with the GH2 18 MP multi-aspect sensor for effective 16MP with either 2500 to 2900 lines of resolution depending on whose test you are quoting. However these cameras and lenses are now producing resolutions higher than many printers are capable of printing just how many dpi do you really need as after all you eyes have limitations too?
One reason many photographers buy into the resolution advantage is on the tele end they want to crop more to extend the effective focal length of their existing lenses without having to buy a monster or to produce very large prints. However cropping results in very substantial loss in resolution in the process and it is much better to have a lens with that effective focal length and speed in the first place than to crop heavily. This is where 4/3 and m4/3 have a big advantage in lens size & weight comparisons.
However this discussion does bring up the question of if you are only viewing these pictures on your laptop or computer and printing to only 8″X10″ size why do you need either 4/3, APSC, or full frame sensors when a more convenient compact would do just fine and you don’t need any other lenses in the first place so why not just use a 5mp in those smaller sensor sizes instead?
12 MPX is just fine for micro 4/3. Increasing the number of pixels on a smaller sensor is just a nonsense… I remind you that GH1 as higher low light quality than GH2… And low light is the main weakness of micro 4/3 system. We need light, we do not need pixels. We need fast lenses. And better quality sensors, and better chips and signal treatment, not more “pixelled” sensors.
To wife:
A 1-pixel sensor? What about a 1 neuron-brained forum writer?
Wow. A little touchy, aren’t we?
When people write in a general way that less pixel is better, THEY inherently imply that ONE pixel is best.
Now if they qualify it like a poster above who said that there’s a diminishing point of return SOMEWHERE, then the generalization makes more sense.
Now, was that hard to comprehend? I’m sure it’s not since my one-neuron-brained mind wrote it.
That point of diminishing returns has been exceeded already even without diffraction getting closer because camera body and lens manufacturing tolerances are bigger than those tolerated by sensors:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts
But you just keep wanting more and more Marketroid’s Pee…
What we really need is some fantastic marketing term that we can attach big numbers to relating to the dynamic range capabilites of a camera. Something like… 10 million unique colors capture! … Something like that to wow the masses and wean them from megapixels.
There is a recent thread over in dpreview regarding disecting the GH2 and clues to future 16 MP Pany senor with links to descriptions of the m4/3 sensors as compared to the lastest Sony sensor design in APSC. What is interesting is yes as you say the GH1 is better in low light and slightly better in a lot of other comparisons but doesn’t go as high ISO settings where GH2 appears to use more NR? Interesting the 12MP and 14MP GH1 chips have just about the same sensor density or micron size as the APS-C Sony one. The author calculated if you used the Sony design in 4/3 size it would be just over 10MP for the GH1 and just a hair lower for the 12 mp size.
Note the predicted new Sony 24MP sensor coming in the NEX7 and A77 will have about the same smaller micron size pixels as the GH2 does. I don’t think it is very realistic to criticise Pany too much on this mega pixel race when you look at what the competition is doing.
I pointed out in a post to that thread that indeed the GH1 appears to have better IQ and indeed is a super bargain right now for only $300 body only for those more interesting in still photography then in HD video and super fast AF that the GH2 has in spades.
I think the autofocus on the GH1 is plenty fast enough unless you are a slow reaction photographer…
The first camera maker (hopefully Olympus/Panasonic) to introduce apps will be gain a massive amount of sales and market share, increasing pixel count is a distraction…
If 6 mega pixels pictures from veteran camera such as Olympus E-1 can make it to the National Geographic Magazine. I don’t see why we need to jeopardize our computer with 20 mega pixels ones. Professional photo stock sites such as Alamy have listed camera such as E-420 which only has 10 mega pixels to be one of many cameras that are suitable for submitting the stock photography for professional use. I really think more mega pixels is really more like a fake orgasm rather than practical reasons~
If your lenses can resolve that much detail, then more resolution is always better. Of course, I’m not sure whether the NEX lenses *can* resolve that kind of detail, but I guess we’ll find out!
One mistake many people make is in comparing 1:1 crops from higher density sensors to 1:1 crops of lower density sensors, then complaining that the higher density sensor is noisier. That’s rubbish! The higher density sensor has more noise, but also more detail, so when you clean the noise in post, it’s a wash.
Quite the point, lens need to resolve the detail.
When comparing different resolutions, comparison must be normalized (resize one photo to match the other’s resolution) higher megapixel count means smaller noise artifacts, however it also means more noise artifacts… there is a breaking point… know where it is it’s quite difficult.
For most users from compacts could live with 6MPs and if not editing (croping) those are more than enough for most people…
I think based on test reports that the NEX5 is already outresolving its kit lenses which are showed less resolution than the m4/3 kit lenses so increasing the MP higher may be all smoke and mirrors sales propaganda until they produce some higher quality lens in that mount?
Great. Substantially larger RAW files with little improvement in actual detail. That’s a win-win right there, that is.
so what happens in 2-3 years with this MP madness? Are they aware that a JPEG file may be as large as 7MB and for RAW shooter it will be a nightmare having to store files almost 20MB each… my oh my..
I think that the size of files will stay relative with the advances in speed, capacity, and lowered cost of memory storage. I think we can expect that computers will evolve right alongside cameras in the next three years.
A couple of years from now, 512g SSD should be the rock bottom on new lap tops.
I wouldn’t turn down that kind of resolution, but I’d sacrifice it in return for better high ISO performance.
What if it allows softer AA filters or none at all without being plagued with moiré?
O/T
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/21/infrared-digital-cam.html
Yes, it is pretty clear now that the next generation Panasonic top cameras (GH3?) must have around 20+ megapixels. Otherwise, it cannot succeed in the market.
Yeah, megapixel is everything! Glad to see the new 2,33″ compacts reach 16 megapixel too!
The manufactures really know how to optimise imagequality from year to year. More megapixel make the photos look so much sharper, cleaner at high iso with great contrast and we all want to make 200″-prints with our small cams!
Congratulations! Thats all we need and all we want 😉
I don’t care what reviews state, the current crop of SLRs such as the Canon 7D and Nikon D7000 produce horrible images compared to previous generations due to the high megapixel counts. I know I am in the elite here, but the images to my eye do not look as good as previous generations of Nikon and Canon cameras.
Horrible?
Its called an hyperbole 😉
With HDTV at most 2mp per frame, what’s the point? The majority of images are viewed on a monitor (TV or computer).
Craziness from a photographer’s viewpoint. Is it a macho thing, or Japanese girl thing, or both? Maybe they all want to ride a hog.
Many of us print. On paper, you know.
Sure, but not usually poster size. Excellent 6x9s and 8x10s can be made from 5mp sensor-derived images.
I routinely print 13″x19″, and that would benefit from higher than 12 or even 16 megapixels – given they are “good” pixels.
Can’t speak for others’ printing.
I don’t think the small sensor of the M4/3 can handle higher MP while keeping noise down. Panasonic can’t compete with Sony’s sensor at higher MP.
Ho do you know? Are you a chip designer? Similar things have been said for years and years, yet each generation of chips has higher and higher MP count while improving on noise.
Also, higher MP count lessens noise when the image is scaled down to a standardized size (eg. screen or 8″x10″ print), ceteris paribus.
how bout the better dynamic range and better noise at high iso? seems that everyone forget for those two things. or is it easier to just go along with the megapixel race? for the crop sensor, i guess 12mp is more than enough, for wallpaper of my 21″ LCD, all i need is 1920 * 1080 😀
The sensor in the K-5/D7000 has the best high-iso noise and dynamic range that’s ever been achieved from an APS sensor, and all with a megapixel count way beyond what we would have even considered a few years ago.
My bet, the sensor in the NEX-7 will be even more impressive than the current Sony sensors, despite the resolution leap.
Agree with Nick. Single pixel quality seem to go a bit down with more pixels and the same sensor size, but total image quality (all pixels used to create an image with a certain size) goes up and is essentialy a function of sensor size and sensor technology (which also improves) – and not pixel count.
All manufacturers know this of course and that’s why they keep making sensors with higher pixel counts. There is a limit somewhere, basic physics dictate that, but we’re not there yet.
Jesus… this is getting ridiculous.
Oh yes, yes again, i want your big 24 megapixels in my cam 😉 Seriously, WTF ? More megapixels doesn’t make image better. Good lenses make better image, big pixels and large sensor helps in noise reduction, fast lenses for low light is better, not more and more small pixel. But from a manufacturer and marketing point of view, it’s easier and cheaper to use a more megapixels sensor: no need to make better lenses, or new design. Nope, just put the all mighty new sensor in your 10year old camera, name it with 7000, 7, 100000 or other big number, and don’t forget to put a big sticker in front of camera, on the package and on the publicity, and it’s done, an all new mighty camera.
Boring pictures @ 24MP are boring pictures.
Ugly cameras @ 24MP are ugly cameras.
And pretentious and uneducated photographers @ 24MP are pretentious and uneducated photographers.
Yawn. Too often heard, getting tired of this “argument”.
Better to have an “ugly” camera with good ergonomics and controls (like the GH2 or a typical DSLR) than a retro-styled body with flimsy wheels like an EPL-2 or a overstyled body like the NEX cameras.
So far the increase in megapixel did not result in a degradation of image quality as the GH2 and many APS-C cameras show. The paranoid pixelpeeping for absolutely noise free images at base ISO is pointless. Today’s high mpx cameras produce better and more consistent IQ (over the ISO range) than their predecessors. I prefer consistent ISO range IQ over something trimmed to be noise-free at base ISO and more resolution over a clean image, which does not upscale too well.
If the camera industry can deliver appropriate lenses for higher mpx counts, I can’t see much wrong with the development as I print larger quite often.
EPL-2 retro styled ?
“If the camera industry can deliver appropriate lenses for higher mpx counts”…
… then you can buy new lenses each two years, and discard the old ones 🙂
I’m sure Panoly loves your philosophy.
Actually my lenses are about 50 years old… and I don’t want to change them for plastic wired stuff.
I’ve been using 40 year old Pentax K and M series primes on the GH2 and both deliver stunning results…
Further proof that super high megapixel count is mostly marketing hype and really doesn’t matter.
Hope that not all companies are joining the pixel race. The Olympus E-5 shows that less pixels could be better then more pixels.
And it uses a 3-year old Panasonic sensor!
Sure would like to see side by side a range of raw image comparisons from an E-5 and E-P1 using exactly the same legacy glass – has anyone done it?
Nex 5 is well built. No need to complain about this. So what is an overpriced 24Mp NEX? A Full Frame one!!! 24Mp is already the pixels count for Sony FF sensor. But neither A850 nor A900 has liveview. So NEX7 would be of a new FF sensor generation. It could even make more sense if we look at the Nikon D2/D3 history. First a new D model. Then DX for an increase of Mp and DS for an increase in sensibility. D3x is 24.5 Mp…
While most eyes on competiton to m4/3 are on the NEXs and their new sensors one should not leave Samsung out of the picture with their projected 16MP new sensor and new NX20 and NX200 models. It is quite possible that Samsung will duplicate Sony’s 16 MP IQ capabilities and their models do have incamera flashes as well as hotshoe and a wider range of small primes and zooms available. So far Samsung has been hurt by using too low a resolution EVF in their NX10/20 series and some operational speed issues but the new cameras are reportedly also coming with new designs. There appears to be too much of a gap between the latest Sony NEX 35 and projected NEX7 at $ 1300 so Sony probably also likely to upgrade to NEX55 also with 16MP sensor?
So Pany and Oly wake up you cannot afford to wait with your new models to compete ie GF3 with 16MP, GF1 replacement with 16MP, and new G3 and for Oly EP3 and EPL3?
The ideal key for the men you may learn right now.