Future of Olympus


Blu-By-U

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2006
1,764
16
38
Selangor D.E.
bigger real estate. So there is really no limitation in the current light circle to accommodate that "bigger" for more space in between photosites to have lower noise or more points.

I think the sensors are not made by Olympus, but if there is a good reason, it probably can request the manufacturer to do it.
Just trying to understand, why do you want it to increase by 2 pixel?

I think the Sensor shift for high res photos work, but I seldom used it.
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
668
36
28
davophoto.wordpress.com
bigger real estate. So there is really no limitation in the current light circle to accommodate that "bigger" for more space in between photosites to have lower noise or more points.
Think of it in terms of signal. By having a larger sensor you're just exposing a greater photosensitive area so you end up recording more signal.
You're doing the same thing when you expose a smaller sensor many times, you increase the signal you record.
So in essence by utilising sensor shift multi exposure or non-shift multi-exposure stacking (eg. in astrophotography), you increase your SNR as if you're using a larger sensor to record.
The downside of course is the time it takes to record the multiple exposures. The more exposures you take, the more signal you gain but the longer it takes and that has implications for both camera motion and subject motion.
Also there are more computational needs.
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
1,099
69
48
bigger real estate. So there is really no limitation in the current light circle to accommodate that "bigger" for more space in between photosites to have lower noise or more points.
I'm sorry to say you have a misconception of what a m43 sensor is. As a format standard it has a fixed physical size or dimension. Eg.full frame 35mm format is 24 X 36mm. Essentially it started out as a four third sensor without the dslr mirror.
Imagine if you wanted more resolution it's like trying to fit more balls into the same size frame except the balls or pixels will have to be smaller. There lies the problem, with a smaller pixel the light gathering capacity is reduced and excess light spill over to adjacent pixel wells or containers resulting in distortion. Essentially the number of pixels is always more than the format specs. Eg. Panasonic's 20mp sensor is speced at 20,300,000 but it's actual size is 21,770,000.

Now this action is not about single or individual pixels as an image sensor only detects the amount or intensity of light that can be collected by a fixed size well or bucket. More importantly an image sensor does not see colour only the amount of light. To "see" colour an array of colour filter is overlayed onto this image sensor called a Bayer array named after a clever man named Bayer. Look at illustration below, imagine an array of 2X2 pixels. It consists of 1x red, 1x blue and 2x green. We all know that red, blue and green make up all colours when combined but I will explain later why there are more green pixels. The fact of the matter is a Bayer array consist of a 4x4 array as seen in the drawing. Now you see there are 4 red, 4 blue and 8 green pixels.
The reason there are more green pixels is that it has less intensity or energy and hence need more pixels or buckets to collect. So in essence a colour pixel is actually a 4x4 pixel array. If you just use a 2x2 colour array you only get half the resolution so clever Mr. Bayer did some mathematics manipulation and called this process DEMOSIACING. It simply means to determine the correct colour , line or shape this computaion is performed by the cpu or image processor which one of a few task need to "make" an image into a jpeg. RAW is simply the information collected without the final image processing.
As can be seen in the drawing demosacing id the processing of the 4x4 array from the 2x2 as well as 2x4 array numbered and combined or processed to give the final accurate intensity and tone afforded by the bayer colour array filter. In essence a digital image sensor is not like a film camera that takes the image ( film emulsion) but a signal amplifier hence the noise generated by silicon structures that make an image sensor but also the electronic circuitry within the sensor and the image processor electronics.

20210415_121959.png


Think of it in terms of signal. By having a larger sensor you're just exposing a greater photosensitive area so you end up recording more signal.
You're doing the same thing when you expose a smaller sensor many times, you increase the signal you record.
So in essence by utilising sensor shift multi exposure or non-shift multi-exposure stacking (eg. in astrophotography), you increase your SNR as if you're using a larger sensor to record.
The downside of course is the time it takes to record the multiple exposures. The more exposures you take, the more signal you gain but the longer it takes and that has implications for both camera motion and subject motion.
Also there are more computational needs.

Again confused Blu-by- Blu's post regarding image sensor pixel density with pixel shift technology. Pixel shift originated from industrial imaging for product inspection purposes where quality control is needed for fine or small structures like flat panel displays or camera phone sensors and others. In order to resolve fine detail they processed the image data by pixel shifting" Now this is not an accurate description but makes it easy for the layman to understand. In reality it does not shift by a whole pixel but by a fraction. 1/3 to 1/2 of a pixel. Hard to imagine right but perhaps camera manufacturers shift by the pixel as marketing by Pentax show below. None the less as you have said it is slow so camera must be on a tripod although Pentax has a feature called dynamic stabalisation making use of it's IBIS to help in the pixel shift process. As you know Olympus m43 sensor is small and thus faster to transfer data can now do pixel shifting handheld but it does not mean it can do sports action. Btw for industrial imaging the resolution is easily depending on the design can achieve 100mp to 600mp.

20210415_125222.png



http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-1-2/feature/02.html
 

Last edited:

Blu-By-U

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2006
1,764
16
38
Selangor D.E.
Thanks . Now I am confused. But thanks. I will stay with taking photos and admiring those taken by others as well..
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
668
36
28
davophoto.wordpress.com
I don't think Blu-by-u is talking about pixel density. From my reading I think he was inferring whether pixel shift can effectively replicate an increase in sensor real estate (thereby mitigating some of the larger sensor advantage) since it is spatially shifting the sensor and taking multiple exposures in each location. So my response was yes and no, but I don't think it's particularly useful or accurate to think of it as an increase in sensor real estate but rather an increase in signal through combining multiple exposures.
As to how it's done, SNR can be increased by exposure stacking without shifting sensors as in astrophotography. Or it could be in combination with sensor shift which yields other advantages than just increasing SNR.
It can shift by one pixel if that's the goal of the manufacturer. A one pixel shift 4 times (left, up, right, down or any of those combination) for a bayer sensor means you're sampling RGB info for every pixel rather than demosaicing from neighbouring pixels as is normally done in a single exposure. So you get an increase in colour info per pixel as well as SNR but no increase in resolution.
Coming back to the topic of sensor shifting to increase resolution, each shift has to be less than 1 pixel. It can be half or 1/3 or whatever. A half pixel shift will require 8 exposures to complete the cycle, whilst a 1/3 pixel shift will require 12 exposures and so forth. I'm sure there are practically limits as to how much you'd gain with even smaller shift increments.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
385
28
28
54
My personal thoughts:

I believe the future of dSLRs does not depends on resolution. Yes, resolution can be increased and price decreased, but I believe that the most important factor is convenience.

1) Why did OIS and IBIS became such a big thing? Simply because it gives the convenience of not having to use a tripod.
>> With OIS and IBIS reaching 5 to 7 f-stops, Most ppl except pros can get by without a tripod.
2) Why did mobile phone cameras dominate the market?
>> The convenience of having a camera in our pocket anytime

There is 1 feature I find sorely missing in dSLRs when I was shooting with my dSLR with my trekking kaki using his Samsung phone. He casually mentioned that the photos on his Samsung phone looks better, and I cannot disagree. Mobile phones generally do a good job in post processing using AI without having to download to a computer to do post processing. That is convenience. Sure, I can do the same with a few simple clicks in lightroom or any other software, but sometimes, but having to download and find hard disk space to save is a chore. My 5 years of photo on my iphone is on the cloud automatically.

The next generation of dSLRs, Olympus or any other brand need to offer similar convenience, except the extreme portability. But I willing to carry something larger, eg. my EM5 mk3, for being able to mount certain lenses eg. Macro, Tele etc which Mobile Phone are not able to compete at the moment. What I am looking forward to is some built in functionality like my iPhone, AI processing and upload to the cloud :)
 

Last edited:

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
1,099
69
48
@ Pitachu, you have to understand the practicality and consequences of having the features you want, convenience vs technology and practicality of implementation.

1. AI processing - By that I take it to mean being able to edit in camera but the display screen is too small to make it practical. Better to transfer to smartphone to do that. Don't tell me you want to add a bigger monitor like video. Too much hassle.

2. DSLR ( mirror) is going to be obsolete. Mirrorless is a better term and does not confuse people.

3. Adding AI is all good but it means you want a more powerful image processor which which require time to develop and test. It will also be power hungry but battery technology has not improved. So it's a catch 22 kind of thing.

4. Convenience - Not a phone chip in the camera as it will incur additional cost to user to have another line subscription to pay. As said better to transfer via bluetooth to smartphone which is more battery friendly than wifi. It also require camera manufacturer to seek regulatry approval in various international markets to comply with interference compliance via tests and certification before sale. ( Do you want 5g radiation in front of your face? )

5. Size and complexity is a compromise as far as practicality is concerned. You can't have it both ways.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,701
62
48
sing
is there any confusion between stacked sensor and sensor shift?
Convenience is what you make of it.
Just like manufacturers make different models of their product line.
Different strokes for different folks.
A certain segment of consumer market is looking for convenience - but not everyone.
Now is mid April 2021.
260 days count down to 1 Jan 2022.
JIP will decide if OMDS is profitable after 1 year (as promised).
If not, JIP can scrap it if they wish to. Future of OMDS is in limbo.
Wait and see.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
385
28
28
54
@ Pitachu, you have to understand the practicality and consequences of having the features you want, convenience vs technology and practicality of implementation.

1. AI processing - By that I take it to mean being able to edit in camera but the display screen is too small to make it practical. Better to transfer to smartphone to do that. Don't tell me you want to add a bigger monitor like video. Too much hassle.
>> No need to edit. Only need to have an option eg. Advanced P-Mode to produce post processed images like Apple or Samsung

2. DSLR ( mirror) is going to be obsolete. Mirrorless is a better term and does not confuse people.
>> I used dSLR to mean both Mirror and Mirrorless. Yes, Mirorless is a better term.

3. Adding AI is all good but it means you want a more powerful image processor which which require time to develop and test. It will also be power hungry but battery technology has not improved. So it's a catch 22 kind of thing.
>> I don't think it draws a lot. When iphone introduced AI in photos, I dont see any significant drop in battery life. My usage all these years is 10 to 12 hours per charge, which is good enough for me

4. Convenience - Not a phone chip in the camera as it will incur additional cost to user to have another line subscription to pay. As said better to transfer via bluetooth to smartphone which is more battery friendly than wifi. It also require camera manufacturer to seek regulatry approval in various international markets to comply with interference compliance via tests and certification before sale. ( Do you want 5g radiation in front of your face? )
>> I don't think it is that costly, especially if you combine the functions into 1 chip instead of having another chip
>>The 5G / 4G can be turned off like bluetooth and Wifi on current cameras

5. Size and complexity is a compromise as far as practicality is concerned. You can't have it both ways.
>> No harm wishing..... but I think it can be done. Problem is Apple and Samsung is not going to sell their AI technology.
Quite a few other vendors AI processing is not so good yet
 

swifty

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2004
668
36
28
davophoto.wordpress.com
My thoughts are it largely depends on the goal of your photography.
If the end justifies the means and you’re willing to relinquish technical and creative control then that’s the direction smartphone photography is headed and best at.
It’s not meant to be disparaging as photography means different things to different people and everyone’s going to have their bar of how much they want to do and how much they want to let their camera do for them.
That’s why this idea of technical superiority being the be all and end all of all things photography is just silly.
The highest possible IQ is not always the goal, just like the best SOOC results are not always the goal.

Personally I enjoy the creation part the most and I would try to do most parts myself until I get to an aspect I can’t humanly keep up such as autofocusing on a fast moving subject. Then my only option is to relinquish control to the camera but even then I like to direct what the camera does and not leave it all to its smart algorithm. Hence why ergonomics and UI are very important to me, much more so than most IQ parameters.
But that’s not to say someone who feels the opposite to me is wrong. We just have different goals in photography.
Similarly stabilisation is a great technical aid but it’s not a crux for bad technique. I also enjoy seeing how far good technique plus stabilisation allow me to push what is possible.
Enjoying the process is all part of the fun for me and that includes the community. I must say Olympus in Sg has some of the best community of photographers I’ve met to date.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
385
28
28
54
Ricohflex, where did you get this bit of info on this JIP promise?

Because OMDS has announced that there will be exciting products to be only announced this year and released next year.
Does not make sense that JIP is going to scrap OMDS if it is not profitable in 260 days time.

JIP will decide if OMDS is profitable after 1 year (as promised).
If not, JIP can scrap it if they wish to. Future of OMDS is in limbo.
Wait and see.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,701
62
48
sing
In Sep 2020, a news article was reported.
{ IP director Shinichi Inagaki has been interviewed by Toyokeizai. Here are the main takeaways:
JIP will not sell :
They said there have been no cases of bankruptcy in their past 30 investments. They are confident they can regenerate the business and definitely do NOT plan to sell the business to the best bidders. The hope is to achieve a profitability in the first year. }

But after the first year, if they cannot achieve profitability...... hmm...

In an interview reported in Feb 2021
Setsuya Kataoka CTO for OM Digital Solutions
{ This is a very difficult question to answer, but if the company fails to return to profitability, will it be sold by JIP?
However, we have to ask ourselves how much profit we will make next year. We are not in a position to give you any specific information about how much we will make next year, or what will happen if we lose money. }
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
1,099
69
48
Since the Olympics is going to start in july,
Olympus and Panasonic may have surprise announcement of new cameras and lenses to spur sales as it is a matter of national pride after spending the money to stage it. Japanese government want olympics to be a success at least for their own people and for this special event people will want to whip out their smartphones and cameras to capture the olympics. Also the other big brands will want to showcase their mirrorless cameras performance shooting the olympics.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
385
28
28
54
Thanks. I tried to google and read the 2 interviews.

In the first interview, it only say "The hope is to achieve a profitability in the first year."
In the second interview, "We are not in a position to give you any specific information about how much we will make next year, or what will happen if we lose money.'

This is very different from what you say " if they cannot return to profitability by Jan 2022, JIP will sell or scrap OMDS and Future of OMDS is in limbo.

If it is your own conclusion, you should state it clearly in order not to create fake news and cause mass panic to unaware readers.
Are you trying to drive down the price of used Olympus gear so you can buy them?
You seems to be doing that for several months already.


In Sep 2020, a news article was reported.
{ IP director Shinichi Inagaki has been interviewed by Toyokeizai. Here are the main takeaways:
JIP will not sell :
They said there have been no cases of bankruptcy in their past 30 investments. They are confident they can regenerate the business and definitely do NOT plan to sell the business to the best bidders. The hope is to achieve a profitability in the first year. }

But after the first year, if they cannot achieve profitability...... hmm...

In an interview reported in Feb 2021
Setsuya Kataoka CTO for OM Digital Solutions
{ This is a very difficult question to answer, but if the company fails to return to profitability, will it be sold by JIP?
However, we have to ask ourselves how much profit we will make next year. We are not in a position to give you any specific information about how much we will make next year, or what will happen if we lose money. }
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,701
62
48
sing
It is clear enough unless one wants to bluff oneself of the harsh reality of business.
In that case, wait and see. Money talks in business in the end.
Fan boy opinion did not save Olympus Camera Division from being killed and divested.
Neither will it in this case. JIP does not tolerate any financial nonsense.
They are accountants. Not fan boys.
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
1,099
69
48
Ricohflex is extrapolating western business practice of "winner takes all" but in the Japanese system they do not want a competitor to fail as it reflects badly on the industry as a whole by making investors lose confidence. Nikon lost more money in one year than Olympus did from 2012 to 2019. Nikon is smaller than Olympus but the culture of doing business in japan is such that other businesses have links or investments in other businesses unrelated to their core business such as a bank.

This kind of links and relationships mean that employees of failed companies do not lose their jobs but are transfered to other companies
in the investment group of companies. Nikon is valuable only in terms of westerners admiration and familiarity of their products. Their mirrorless market share is 7.5% compared to Olympus 8% . Simple fact is westerners love nikon but not in japan and for this reason investors would like nikon to continue as long as possible.

Here is the comparison of olympus and nikon. Will nikon go the same way?

 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
385
28
28
54
Ricohflex, I have not made any "fanboy" opinions with regards to whether JIP should continue with OMDS or not.
I am just verifying your statements whether stated in the interviews you mentioned or your own conclusions.

Since you are not confirming that they are mentioned in the interview and come out with more bias opinions,
I conclude that what you have stated so far are all your personal opinions. I have no problem with that except that the way you have worded seems to have an intention to mislead.

I am aware and agree that JIP will get rid of OMDS if it cannot turn it around.
BUT:
1) It is not as soon as Jan 2022, as they have announced several products to be released.
2) They do not have to scrap OMDS. Tons of companies (many in China) are queuing up to buy over OMDS, just that as per Japanese culture, they prefer to sell to a Japanese company first, which is JIP. This is from someone I know who are in close contact with Camera parts manufacturers.

Future of Olympus and other Mirrorless manufacturers facing declining interests in Mirrorless cameras vs using mobile phone cameras really depends on whether they can retain or come up with some unique benefits of carrying a more bulky device. I say this because 8 out of 10 or my non-photographer friends gave up their cameras and use mobile phones even for when traveling (before Covid 19)

It is clear enough unless one wants to bluff oneself of the harsh reality of business.
In that case, wait and see. Money talks in business in the end.
Fan boy opinion did not save Olympus Camera Division from being killed and divested.
Neither will it in this case. JIP does not tolerate any financial nonsense.
They are accountants. Not fan boys.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,701
62
48
sing
This lens
NIKKOR Z 24-200MM F/4-6.3 VR
costs Sing$1399 listed price.
My friend just bought one today for I think about $1,200. Brand new. Embossed Made in Thailand. (at least they tell you)
This is for his Nikon Z mount Full Frame camera. 4 times bigger sensor.

Olympus has a 12 to 100 F4 lens for MFT. Engraved Made in Vietnam. (at least they tell you). Unlike a certain SGD$10,000 lens.

Consumers compare sensor size and mount. They make their choice.
Olympus must know what it is up against. What the competitors can offer.
 

Pitachu

Active Member
Sep 18, 2019
385
28
28
54
Ricohflex, is Price and Country of Manufacture all that you look for when comparing lenses?

1) There is a difference between fixed aperture and variable aperture lenses. For all brands, a F4 lenses is more costly than a F4-6.3 .
2) The Nikkor min. Focus distance is 0.5m and the Olympus is 0.15m. Normally longer min. focus distance lenses for the same focal range are cheaper as they are easier to make.
3) The Olympus is weather sealed, the Nikkor is not
4) The Olympus is a Pro lenses, I believe the Nikkor is targeted towards consumers (I have no proof on this, only gut feeling)


This lens
NIKKOR Z 24-200MM F/4-6.3 VR
costs Sing$1399 listed price.
My friend just bought one today for I think about $1,200. Brand new. Embossed Made in Thailand. (at least they tell you)
This is for his Nikon Z mount Full Frame camera. 4 times bigger sensor.

Olympus has a 12 to 100 F4 lens for MFT. Engraved Made in Vietnam. (at least they tell you). Unlike a certain SGD$10,000 lens.

Consumers compare sensor size and mount. They make their choice.
Olympus must know what it is up against. What the competitors can offer.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,701
62
48
sing
One of the articles on Internet.

Other news on Internet is that OMDS is likely to continue using the Olympus brand for longer than expected.
This is wise.
OMDS brand embossed on a camera or lens does not have any brand value (yet).
Consumers are likely to reject it.
The Olympus brand has more brand recognition.
If suddenly OMDS brand is issued, it can affect the sales of existing Olympus branded cameras / lenses retailed in the shops.
Because that would signal the decline /end of Olympus branded cameras. Buyers will stay away.

OMDS sticking to MFT may be what the interviewed staff have to say (otherwise they get scolded, condemned or fired).
If MFT has failed for years from 2008 to 2020; then how does continuing with a Failed Strategy in 2021 give success to OMDS?
It won't.

If the intention is to purposely make OMDS fail, so that parent company JIP has justification to tear it apart after 1 year, then the adherence to MFT makes sense.

If OMDS goes into collaboration with ONE mobile phone manufacturer, it opens a new route.
But mobile phone is not a core skill of OMDS.
There are many mobile phone brands, that have their own in-house lens supply or licensing arrangements.
Huawei has Leica licensed lenses.
The old Nokia phones used to have Carl Zeiss licensed lenses.

Panasonic is delaying GH6 launch. While concentrating on full frame models.