RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘size’

Megapixels, Sensor Size or Lens: What Matters Most?

23 Jul

It’s hard to compare apples to apples when you want to buy a camera. Product descriptions throw all these numbers at you, such as the number of megapixels and the sensor size, but you may not understand how each affects image quality. Plus, for interchangeable lens cameras, many people will tell you the lens is more important than the camera Continue Reading
Photodoto

 
Comments Off on Megapixels, Sensor Size or Lens: What Matters Most?

Posted in Photography

 

Sony a7C review: Compact size, big sensor image quality

28 Oct

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_5104195094″,”galleryId”:”5104195094″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

Silver Award

87%
Overall score

The Sony a7C is the company’s latest and smallest full-frame interchangeable lens camera. It fits a 24MP full-frame sensor and image stabilization into a body more closely resembling the APS-C sensor a6600.

A lot of work has clearly gone into making this one of the smallest full frame cameras available, whereas a lot of the features and capabilities are familiar. A new retractable kit zoom is being launched along with the a7C to help maintain those size savings.

Out of camera JPEG.
ISO 500 | 1/40 sec | F9 | Sony FE 35mm F1.8
Photo by Carey Rose

Key specifications

  • 24MP BSI CMOS full-frame sensor
  • Bionz X processor (same as in the a7 III)
  • ‘Real-time tracking’ AF system with human head, face, eye, and animal recognition
  • Oversampled 4K video at up to 30p, including 8-bit S-Log and HLG
  • Continuous bursts at up to 10 fps
  • Fully articulating 921K dot touchscreen
  • 2.36M dot EVF with 0.59x mag.
  • Mic and headphone sockets
  • Large ‘Z-type’ battery, rated to 740 shots per charge

The Sony a7C is available at a price of around $ 1799 ($ 2399 CAD) or with the new collapsible 28-60mm F4-5.6 kit zoom for around $ 2099 ($ 2699 CAD).


Review contents

From the camera’s controls to the image and video quality it’s capable of, find out what exactly what you want to know about the a7C right here.

What’s new and how it compares

The a7C fits almost all the capabilities of the a7 III into a body that has more in common with the a6000 series. This means a smaller viewfinder but few other compromises.

Read more

Body and handling

The a7C has three dials, all controlled using your thumb. It still handles pretty well, though, with a solid body and a small but pretty comfortable grip.

Read more

Initial impressions

The a7C’s main strengths are its size and convenience. This could make it a powerful travel or family camera. But there’s a price to be paid, and this isn’t necessarily a budget option.

Read more

Image quality

The a7C produces both Raw and JPEG images that are a match for any of its peers. Dynamic range is excellent but you need to shoot large, uncompressed Raw files to get the full benefit.

Read more

Autofocus and video

The a7C’s main improvement over the a7 III is an autofocus system that integrates all its subject recognition capabilities so you don’t need to mess around changing modes to get the most out of it.

Video is good but its operation can be a little awkward.

Read more

Conclusion

The a7C’s combination of size, image quality, AF performance and battery life make it a superb travel camera, but some awkward aspects of operation, including its small viewfinder, hold it back as a photographer’s choice.

Read more

Sample gallery

We’ve been shooting the a7C with both its kit zoom and the sensibly compact FE 35mm F1.8, to see what the camera offers.

See the gallery

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Sony a7C review: Compact size, big sensor image quality

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Image Size and Resolution Explained for Print and Onscreen

27 Oct

The post Image Size and Resolution Explained for Print and Onscreen appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Helen Bradley.

One of the most confusing things for a new photographer is understanding image size, resolution, and printing.

So in this article, I’ll explain what these terms mean.

And I’ll show you how to resize your images depending on what you want to do with them.

Let’s get started.

What is resolution in digital cameras?

When talking about digital cameras, resolution refers to the number of megapixels produced by an image sensor.

This, in turn, generally corresponds to the amount of detail a camera can capture.

So if your camera packs 20 megapixels (often written as 20 MP), it captures less detail than a camera with 30 megapixels, which in turn captures less detail than a camera with 40 megapixels.

But what is a megapixel, really? And how does it affect your ability to print and display photos?

Megapixels and photo size

Find information about a photo (including resolution) using File > File Info

Technically, a megapixel is equal to 1,048,576 pixels; in reality, camera manufacturers round this number to 1,000,000 when stating how large of an image the camera will capture.

So my camera, for example, captures 14.6-megapixel images, which is around 14,600,000 pixels per image (14.6 x 1,000,000). This information tells you nothing about the actual pixel dimensions of the image – it only tells you the total number of pixels that make up the image.

My camera, like most DSLRs, captures images with an aspect ratio of 1.5. So the ratio comparing the number of pixels along the long edge of the image to the short edge of the image is 3:2.

Each of my full-sized RAW images is 4672 x 3104 pixels in dimension. So by multiplying the number of pixels along the image width by those along the image height, we get the actual number of pixels in the image (4672 x 3104 = 14,501,888). You and I might call this 14.5 MP, but camera manufacturers round this up and call it a 14.6 MP camera.

You can check the width and height of an image using your photo editing software. In Photoshop, you can open your image, then choose File > File Info > Camera Data. The image above shows the resulting information dialog box.

Now, a pixel itself is a single picture element – and for our purposes, it’s the smallest element that your photo can be divided up into. A pixel can only be one color, and a photograph is made up of a grid of thousands of pixels, each of the different colors that together make up your image.

You can see these pixels if you open a photo and zoom in until you see single blocks of color (as shown below). Each of these blocks is a pixel:

An image of pixels in a photo

Why size is important when printing

When you’re printing an image, you may encounter the term PPI or pixels per inch. This literally refers to the number of pixels in an inch-long line of an image.

Most printing services, and indeed your own printer, will require a certain density of pixels in the image (PPI) to be able to render a print that looks good (i.e., with smooth color transitions so you can’t see each individual pixel).

Typical printing PPI values range from 150 to 300 PPI, although some high-end magazines may require images that are 1200 PPI.

So for example, if you want to print a 4 x 6 inch image at 300 PPI, then you need a file that has at least 4 x 300 (1200) pixels along its short side and 6 x 300 (1800) pixels on the long side. In other words, it needs to be at least 1200 x 1800 pixels in size.

To print an 8 x 10 inch image at 300 PPI, use the same math:

Multiply the printed image’s width and height in inches by 300 pixels. The result is 2,400 x 3,000 pixels, which is the image resolution you need to print an 8 x 10 image at 300 PPI.

Therefore, when cropping and sizing an image for printing, you’ll need to know what PPI the image should be. Your printer manual or printing service should be able to tell you this.

Below is a screenshot from the MpixPro.com website, showing their optimal and minimum image sizes for standard print sizes. Their printer outputs at 250 PPI (but can handle 100 PPI images), though other services may differ, so always check before preparing your images.

Print size required for MpixPro printing

Use the crop or resize feature in your software to size your image to the desired width and height and the desired PPI resolution.

Here, an image cropped to a size of 3000 x 2400 pixels is being adjusted from 72 PPI to 300 PPI in preparation for printing at 300 PPI. There is no resampling required, as the image is already the correct dimensions and only the resolution requires adjusting.

Adjusting resolution in a photo without resampling it

Photoshop, like other applications, will also crop an image to a fixed size and resolution if you type your desired values into the options bar when you have the crop tool selected (see below). If your image is smaller than the typed dimensions, then the image will be enlarged using the default resampling method. While it isn’t generally advisable to enlarge images, provided the image is already close to the desired size, enlarging it a little generally won’t cause a noticeable loss of quality.

When cropping in Photoshop, you can specify image size and resolution

Sizing for the screen

When it comes to displaying images on the screen, you need far fewer pixels than you do for printing.

This is because the density of pixels on the screen is far less than what is required for printing. For example, a typical monitor is 1920 x 1080 pixels in size; to fill the monitor, you only need an image that is 1920 x 1080 pixels in size. That’s about the same size image you need for a 4 x 6 print at 300 PPI – yet the 1920 x 1080 pixel image displays perfectly on a 23-inch monitor.

The post Image Size and Resolution Explained for Print and Onscreen appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Helen Bradley.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Image Size and Resolution Explained for Print and Onscreen

Posted in Photography

 

Sony a7C initial review: Compact size, big sensor image quality

15 Sep

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_5104195094″,”galleryId”:”5104195094″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

The Sony a7C is the company’s latest and smallest full-frame interchangeable lens camera. It fits a 24MP full-frame sensor and image stabilization into a body more closely resembling the APS-C sensor a6600.

A lot of work has clearly gone into making this one of the smallest full frame cameras available, whereas a lot of the features and capabilities are familiar. A new retractable kit zoom is being launched along with the a7C to help maintain those size savings.

Out of camera JPEG.
ISO 500 | 1/40 sec | F9 | Sony FE 35mm F1.8
Photo by Carey Rose

Key specifications

  • 24MP BSI CMOS full-frame sensor
  • Bionz X processor (same as in the a7 III)
  • ‘Real-time tracking’ AF system with human head, face, eye, and animal recognition
  • Oversampled 4K video at up to 30p, including 8-bit S-Log and HLG
  • Continuous bursts at up to 10 fps
  • Fully articulating 1.44M dot touchscreen
  • 921k dot EVF with 0.59x mag.
  • Mic and headphone sockets
  • Large ‘Z-type’ battery, rated to 740 shots per charge

The Sony a7C will be available from October 2020 at a price of around $ 1799 USD ($ 2399 CAD) or with the new collapsible 28-60mm F4-5.6 kit zoom for around $ 2099 USD ($ 2699 CAD).


Review contents

From the camera’s controls to the image and video quality it’s capable of, find out what exactly what you want to know about the a7C right here.

What’s new and how it compares

The a7C fits almost all the capabilities of the a7 III into a body that has more in common with the a6000 series. This means a smaller viewfinder but few other compromises.

Read more

Body and handling

The a7C has three dials, all controlled using your thumb. It still handles pretty well, though, with a solid body and a small but pretty comfortable grip.

Read more

Initial impressions

The a7C’s main strengths are its size and convenience. This could make it a powerful travel or family camera. But there’s a price to be paid, and this isn’t necessarily a budget option.

Read more

Sample gallery

We’ve been shooting the a7C with both its kit zoom and the sensibly compact FE 35mm F1.8, to see what the camera offers.

See the gallery

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Sony a7C initial review: Compact size, big sensor image quality

Posted in Uncategorized

 

What Size Beauty Dish is Right For Your Portrait Photography?

03 Jul

The post What Size Beauty Dish is Right For Your Portrait Photography? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by John McIntire.

What Size Beauty Dish is Right For Your Portrait Photography?

Beauty dishes are common and well-loved lighting modifiers. They are particularly useful for portraits (beauty is in the name after all). They also tend to be a lot cheaper than decent sized softboxes. Years ago, your choice of beauty dish was quite limited. Nowadays, if you try searching for beauty dishes, you will be presented with a multitude of options that greatly vary in size and even how they set up.

2- What Size Beauty Dish is Right For Your Portrait Photography?

Although the numbers don’t seem to be that different, the actual sizes of these beauty dishes vary greatly, and they all have a distinct effect on the light in your images.

What do you do when faced with this kind of choice and how do you know what size beauty dish you should buy? This article discusses three common sizes of beauty dishes and shows you what effect they have on your images. All of the beauty dishes discussed here are silver, and none of them are collapsible. As long as they are of decent quality, the fact that a beauty dish is collapsible should have no impact on your images.

What is a beauty dish?

Three different size beauty dishes. Left: 16″ Middle: 20″ Right: 27″

Beauty dishes are bowl-shaped modifiers that are known for the contrasty light they provide. The quality of light is usually somewhere between hard and soft (when brought in close to your subject). This sets them apart from other modifiers, like umbrellas and softboxes, where the goal is to achieve the softest light possible. This allows you to achieve well-defined edges and shadows, but still retain a flattering light on your subject.

This image shows an unmodified beauty dish on the left. A gridded beauty dish in the middle, and a beauty dish fitted with a diffusion sock on the right.

Often, you will find that beauty dishes come with grids and diffusion socks to help modify them further. Grids alter and increase the directionality of the light, while diffusion socks diffuse the light further, softening it a bit and altering the shape.

What sizes are there?

Any search for a beauty dish should reveal a huge amount of results these days. You can find tiny beauty dishes that are only a few inches across that are designed for flashguns and you can find massive beauty dishes that would be ideal for lighting groups of people. This article compares three sizes that fall more into the normal sized category. These are a 27″, 20″ and 16″.

All three beauty dishes were positioned the same distance from the subject to clearly demonstrate the differences in the effect they provide.

1. 27″

At 27-inch in diameter, this beauty dish is at the upper reaches of what you can expect to find in terms of size. When it’s in close, the light it provides is really soft and is comparable to a medium-sized softbox, but with a bit more contrast to it. It also provides large catchlights in your subject’s eyes.

Because of its size, it’s easy to bring the light further away from your subject to achieve a similar effect to that of smaller beauty dishes, while giving you more room to work. This beauty dish would also be great for lighting multiple people, whereas smaller dishes might struggle.

The 27″ beauty dish provides really soft light when placed in close. Pay attention to the shadow and highlight transitions as well as to how the light wraps around the subject.

There are a couple of disadvantages to a beauty dish this big. The bigger the light source is in relation to your subject, the less bright your subject’s eyes are going to be. If you want bright, clear eyes, a smaller beauty dish may be the way to go. It is also harder to control the light fall off (without a grid) as the bigger source will cast more light behind your subject.

2. 20″

The second beauty dish we’re going to discuss comes in at 20 inches. This is pretty close to what may be considered a standard size for a beauty dish (if there is such a thing). Placed a few feet (1-4) away from your subject, the qualities of light it produces are great for all sorts of portraiture and for a wide variety of subjects.

It is great for male and female subjects, though for flattering portraits of older people you may want to consider not using a beauty dish. Instead, opt for large softboxes and umbrellas. As the beauty dish isn’t a great deal bigger than your average subject’s head (from an appropriate distance), you also have good control over the light fall off, and you have even more control when you introduce a grid.

The 20″ beauty dish also provides good, soft light but the edges of the transitions from shadow to highlight are more defined. You’ll also note the light wraps around the subject less and results in darker shadows toward the back of the subject’s head.

3. 16″

This last beauty dish is 16-inches in diameter. This is the size that I have used the most ever since I bought it well over a decade ago. You can see in the images just how battered and well-used it is.

Because it is quite small, it is easy to control and great to bring in really close to your subject. This beauty dish clearly lights and defines your subject’s eyes. The harder light source also provides clearly defined edges between shadows and highlights but in a flattering manner.

If you want to reduce light fall off as much as possible, this size is definitely the way to go. However, if you want to increase it, you are better off with a larger modifier. This is because moving this beauty dish any distance from your subject will result in really hard light that you might find unflattering to most subjects.

The 16″ beauty dish also provides excellent light. Here you can see the transitions from shadow to highlight are clearly defined. Also, the rapid light fall off means the areas towards the back of the subject’s head are more in shadow.

In terms of portability, this size beauty dish is great. It doesn’t weigh very much at all and just carrying it in your hand takes minimum effort.

When used as something other than a key light, this size beauty dish is really effective. Its small size makes it unobtrusive and easy to position anywhere you need, whether that’s for use as a hair light or fill.

What size should you get?

Left: 16″ Middle: 20″ Right: 27″

Some of the differences between these three modifiers can be subtle and hard to spot if you’re new to lighting. If you’re still wondering which you should opt for, my best advice (which is by no means gospel) would be to evaluate what you need it for.

Do you need portability? Get a small one or consider a collapsible one.

Will you be shooting groups of people often? Go for the largest one you can.

Are you shooting in a small space? Go for the small one again.

Are you shooting in a large space where you can’t get the lights very close to your subject? Again, go for the biggest one possible.

Whichever you choose, make sure that it comes with both a grid and a diffusion sock for the most control possible.

No matter which way you choose to go, you are going to find yourself with a versatile and useful modifier that will last you for years.

Have you used these modifiers? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

 

what size beauty dish

The post What Size Beauty Dish is Right For Your Portrait Photography? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by John McIntire.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on What Size Beauty Dish is Right For Your Portrait Photography?

Posted in Photography

 

The FAA predicts the commercial drone market could triple in size by 2023

08 May

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently released its two-decade Aerospace Forecast for fiscal years 2019-2039. While they’ve successfully predicted steady growth in the drone industry over the past five years, this latest annual update reveals that they’ve underestimated the phenomenal rate of adoption for unmanned aerial vehicles.

‘A comparison of last year’s data with this year’s (2018) shows that the annual growth rate to be around 13 percent,’ reads the report. ‘This continues to be substantial growth as anticipated from the introduction of drones as a recreation activity facilitated by falling equipment prices and improved technology, such as built-in cameras and relatively easy maneuvering.’

Last year, predictions put roughly 452,000 commercial (non-model) drones in the sky by 2022. Now it appears that the industry will reach that landmark around the beginning of next year. According to the latest data collected, if trends continue, the FAA foresees market growth tripling in size over the next five years, topping off at 835,000 drones by 2023 – an average annual growth rate of 24.7 percent.

The FAA has registered more than 116,000 remote pilots through the end of 2018. Officials expect that number to reach roughly 350,000 pilots with Part 107 certification by 2023.

The FAA has registered more than 116,000 remote pilots through the end of 2018. Officials expect that number to reach roughly 350,000 pilots with Part 107 certification by 2023. In this category, “the pace of monthly registration, almost 15,000, is nearly 3-times higher than the pace at which non-model aircraft owners registered their craft during the same time last year.”

Despite the significant growth, the FAA acknowledged that as with all technologies, model aircraft (non-commercial drone) sales will inevitably slow as ‘the pace of falling prices diminishes and the early adopters begin to experience limits in their experiments or simply eagerness plateaus.’

Since the FAA’s online registration system went into effect on Dec. 21, 2015, more than 900,000 owners have registered their drones through September 2018. The agency estimates 1.25 million drones are currently in use across the U.S. with growth projected to reach 1.4 million by 2023. Monthly owner registration for model aircraft averaged around 8,000 – 9,000 per month from January – December, 2018. The overall pace of registration has decreased to about half compared to the same period the year before.

As the commercial industry continues to grow, new sectors and uses for drone technology will continue to emerge. Google’s Wing recently received permission to deliver small commercial goods to consumers, a first for the FAA to grant any company. A kidney was transported, via drone, to a transplant patient this past week.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The FAA predicts the commercial drone market could triple in size by 2023

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size

18 Apr

We’ve already looked at the role played by pixel size and the benefits of a larger sensor. But, before you rush out to buy the camera with the biggest sensor you can, it’s worth bearing in mind that you won’t always see its full advantage.

Key takeaways:

  • For the same field-of-view, a larger format will have shallower depth-of-field at the same F-number.
  • Shallow depth-of-field can be a creative benefit, up to a point, but you sometimes need a certain depth-of-field.
  • You can stop down a large sensor camera to match the depth-of-field of a smaller one, but you end up with comparable image quality if you do.
  • All formats are a series of compromises and there is no correct balance to strike.

The depth-of-field trade-off

As we’ve seen, if you can achieve the same exposure settings, a larger sensor will have a chance to absorb more light and hence give better image quality. But achieving the same exposure value usually requires you to use the same f-number.

With the same f-number, a larger format will also have shallower depth-of-field, which will sometimes be desirable but other times not. Depending on your tastes and shooting style, shallow depth-of-field (and the additional light that usually comes with it) can be a valuable creative tool. But only up to a point, and not in all circumstances.

A ‘full-frame’ sensor tends to require large lenses but can capture lots of light. This extra light capture comes with shallow depth-of-field (for better or worse).

In situations where you need more depth-of-field it’s possible to stop down the lens on a large sensor camera, but doing so will reduce the amount of light available to your camera: at which point you’ll see the advantage over a smaller-sensor system begin to diminish (while still having to deal with the larger format’s size, weight and cost).

Bigger is usually better, but how much better do you need?

Also, the examples we’ve used were shot in relatively low light. In bright daylight, the image quality of many systems will readily exceed ‘good enough:’ even simple one-shot smartphones do a reasonable job in good light. And once you’re reached ‘good enough,’ any further improvement may not be worthwhile, or even perceptible. So, while a larger sensor will give the potential to receive more light and capture every tone with greater fidelity, that difference won’t always offer a visually appreciable benefit.

A smaller sensor can’t usually capture as much total light or compete in absolute image quality terms, but it can generally be smaller and more convenient as a result.

In the most simple terms, all systems involve trade-offs between size, price and image quality. The challenge is to understand the magnitude of these trade-offs, and choose the one that makes most sense for you and the types of photos you want to take.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Choosing a camera Part 1: should I worry about pixel size?

17 Apr

Pixels are the fundamental building blocks of digital photography: they are the individual elements that capture the light to make up your image. Higher pixel-count cameras promise better resolution but it’s often said that their smaller pixels result in noisier, less-clean images.

So does this mean you should look for fewer, bigger pixels when you buy your next camera?

Probably not. That’s because the idea that small pixels are noisier is only really true when you examine your images at pixel level. We’ve long passed the point where you only had enough pixels to fill your monitor. And even people making large prints will find that a 24MP camera provides far more resolution than needed for printing at A3 (11.7 x 16.3″).

Looking at the bigger picture

At which point, taking a more holistic, whole-image-level perspective on picture quality probably makes at least as much sense as worrying about the noisiness of your individual pixels.

Smaller pixels each receive less light than large ones, so will always individually be noisier (because for most photography, most of the noise comes from the amount of light you sample). But as soon as we have to scale our images to view or print them, this difference becomes much less significant or disappears entirely.

Key takeaways:

  • Larger pixels get more light during any given exposure, so are less noisy when viewed 1:1
  • Combining multiple small pixels cancels out most (or all) of this difference when viewed at the same size
  • For most applications you’ll end up downsizing your images, so there’s usually a resolution advantage but little (if any) downside to having more pixels

The effect of pixel size:

The Nikon D850 and the Sony a7S are both relatively modern full frame sensors, but they have very different pixel counts. Because they have the same sized sensor, this means the individual pixels on the 12MP a7S are much larger than the D850, which has a sensor made up of 48 million pixels.

The a7S is often described as being great in low light, but this is only true if you pixel peep.

Let’s see how they compare when scaled to the same size:

ISO 6400
D850 Full size
[Raw File]
a7S
[Raw File]
D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 12800
D850 Full size
[Raw File]
a7S
[Raw File]
D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 25600
D850 Full size
[Raw File]
a7S
[Raw File]
D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]
ISO 51200
D850 Full size
[Raw File]
a7S
[Raw File]
D850 (resized: 12MP)
[Raw File]

At the pixel level the a7S is much less noisy, as you’d expect with its larger pixels. But, at all but the very highest ISO settings, that advantage disappears when you compare them both at the same scale. The difference is that you usually retain some of the additional detail that the D850 captured.

We see this same pattern across almost all cameras. The only times we have seen any disadvantage to small pixels is in the very smallest pixels used in smartphones (and those often use multi-shot modes to overcome this) or in sensors that use unconventional sensor technologies.

The thing that’s much more likely to make a difference to your image quality is sensor size. We’ll look at this in the next part of this article series…

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Choosing a camera Part 1: should I worry about pixel size?

Posted in Uncategorized

 

‘Sensor size isn’t the answer’ – Olympus exec explains the thinking behind E-M1X

31 Jan

Aki Murata, VP of sales and marketing for Olympus America.

Long before the new Olympus OM-D E-M1X was officially announced, we had the opportunity to sit down with Aki Murata, VP of sales and marketing for Olympus America, to talk about the upcoming camera. While some details of the final specification were yet to be finalized (our conversation happened in October) Mr Murata was keen to explain the concept behind the pro-oriented E-M1X, and why in his opinion it doesn’t make sense for Olympus to go full-frame.

The following interview has been edited slightly for clarity and flow.


What kind of customers are you hoping to attract with the E-M1X?

We believe that there will be three types of users. One is users stepping up from existing M43 cameras, like the E-M1 Mark II. That’s a good camera, but in certain circumstances it doesn’t work for sports photography. For example having a joystick on the vertical and horizontal grips – that’s the kind of thing that’s needed for wildlife and sports. That’s the number one target group.

Second is photographers who are stepping up from APS-C, like Canon 7D users. Those people are buying APS-C to make use of tele lenses, to get longer focal lengths. And the system is smaller than full-frame. Those people aspire to EOS-1D X type products but they’re not affordable. And they’re big, it’s a hassle. This camera will create new demand. You can shoot at long focal lengths and still hand-hold.

For us, sensor size isn’t the answer

Obviously current APS-C users will be tough. ‘Step-up’ for some of them means going to full-frame. But we want to say to those people think again – what kind of pictures do you want to take? For us, sensor size isn’t the answer. We want to convey that message to the market. Full-frame is definitely a buzzword in the market, but maybe after carrying around full-frame lenses they’ll find they’re too big and give up!

The third group is people who are making an additional purchase, in addition to 5-series, 1D-series or D5 cameras who want to try the new system. Because what this camera does is basically the same. People may think that they need full-frame but once they’ve seen this camera’s performance I don’t think that that will be an argument, considering the difference in size and weight.

Arguably, the Olympus OM-D E-M1X represents the company’s most serious attempt to court professional photographers since the film-era OM-4, released in 1986.

The AF tracking will be very important for those demographics – how did you benchmark the new camera compared to competitors?

We don’t have any numbers around that, but in order to develop this camera’s AF system we gave it to many professionals here [in the US] and abroad to get their opinions about AF performance. So we’ve changed the algorithms a lot. It’s not so much about benchmarking about other cameras, more about listening to the voices of the professionals. And obviously the AI technologies.

Ultimate reliability goes far beyond strong build, and resilience to the elements

You said that the camera has been in testing for a long time – can you tell us how long it’s been in development, from the initial concept?

After the E-M1 II, we started to get feedback from the market. That was the first step. Our R&D guys wanted to develop the camera for ultimately reliability. The E-M1 was the first challenge, then the Mark II, when we really wanted to improve autofocus accuracy. But after listening to the pros we realised we had to make an even bigger effort to achieve maximum reliability. That was the starting point, when we were planning the new model.

‘Ultimate Reliability’ is a primary goal of Olympus’s R&D philosophy. This philosophy was established 48 years ago in a company memorandum created by Yosihisa Maitani [creator of the original OM product line]. This memorandum establishes three main R&D goals: compact, lightweight and ultimate reliability. Ultimate reliability goes far beyond strong build, and resilience to the elements, it also speaks to the cameras performance and consistent operation. This R&D policy is still followed today and is a cornerstone of our operation.

Is it very important to you that professionals use Olympus cameras?

Absolutely. Our target is that Olympus gear will be trusted by professionals. That’s what we want to achieve. And to achieve it, we need to achieve ultimate reliability. With the M43 system we want professionals to use our cameras and be satisfied by them.

Do you expect to see Olympus lenses at the 2020 olympics?

I hope so! We had the Asian olympic games a couple of months ago and that was our first time being inside the press center. There was only Olympus and one other manufacturer. We didn’t have many professional photographers there, but we had some and they came to us for professional service. That was a great first step for us.

The M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-400mm F4.5 TC1.25x IS Pro is equivalent to 300-800mm on Micro Four Thirds bodies, increasing to 375-1000mm with its built-in teleconverter activated. The lens will be available in 2020.

How will computational photography technology from smartphones change cameras in the future?

The speed of smartphone development means that those technologies can be incorporated into smartphones, first. The risk for the photo industry is that people lose interest in traditional photography because their smartphone is so good. If the next step is big lenses and huge cameras, a lot of people might just give up and use their phones instead. They’re not competitors in some ways, but in other ways they are.

How will you address that challenge?

First of all we won’t use any other mount other than Four Thirds. If we had more than one mount, that’s not really user-friendly, and we’re creating the risk that we’d lose customers. If we ask you to buy a camera and lens and then step up to another mount, you might not want to do that. We want to create one, cohesive system with M43. We know our strengths. We have a small and lightweight system, which is good for shooting telezoom lenses, outside. So we’re focusing on this area, to provide suitable products for this field of photography.

For this [kind of photography], you cannot utilize a smartphone. You need optics, and capable AF systems. This is the area we want to focus on. We think that there is growth in these areas. This differentiates us a lot compared to smartphones. We would like all users in these fields to test our product because once they do they will see how accurate the autofocus is, and we have 7.5 stops of stabilization now, you can make great images.

Many people buy $ 399 or $ 499 DSLRs and end up just abandoning them

Lastly, services – not in terms of repair, but what we can offer our customers. We are not a giant in the camera industry, we know that. So we cannot speak to all photographers, but for our users we want to provide good post-purchase experiences. This is a new vision we’ve been talking about in the past few months. If we meet in a year or two I hope that you’ll remember what I said in this meeting!

Many people buy $ 399 or $ 499 DSLRs and end up just abandoning them, because in some conditions the pictures might look worse than their phone. Unless we give proper training, information and proper hands-on experiences, it’s difficult to enjoy photography. Our responsibility is not only to create cameras, but to provide services after purchase. We’re currently thinking how we can use our current platform, or maybe a new digital platform.

The ultra-tough E-M1X is built for reliability and endurance in tough environments. Two batteries deliver a CIPA rated 800+ shots before the camera runs out of juice. In more representative shooting situations we’d expect much more.

This is a very uncluttered camera, compared to previous OM-D 1-series cameras. Does this represent a deliberate attempt to create a different kind of experience?

Many of those things come from direct feedback from photographers. They’ll tell us ‘it’s really good to have this button here, so I don’t press it by mistake’, or whatever. So we have made several changes after talking to professionals and finally we came up with the [E-M1 X]. We just wanted to make the perfect camera for them.

They didn’t want an LCD on top?

Do you need one? There are mixed feelings on that. We considered it, but the camera would become bigger and lose operability. Our R&D guys just sit next to professionals sometimes, and watch how they use the camera. That’s how they get inspiration.

This is still a fairly large camera – do you still have any interest in developing the smaller, lighter cameras?

specially last year we used a lot of R&D resources on this camera, not only because we want to have professional users, but because we wanted to add ultimate reliability to our lineup. We wanted to meet the requirement of professionals who shoot sports and wildlife. Now that [the E-M1X] has arrived, and it’s our 100th anniversary, you can expect more.

We don’t make full-frame, because we don’t believe that everyone needs it

Olympus is now the only camera manufacturer not to offer an APS-C or larger sensor. How will you differentiate your lineup in that context?

We have three strengths: Compactness and light weight, lens quality, and I.S. That combination is unique. Full-frame is kind of like a buzzword in the market, but lens size cannot be changed. If you compare the systems there are visible differences in terms of size and weight. We do what we believe is right. We don’t make full-frame, because we don’t believe that everyone needs it. For most photographers it’s better to have mobility – if you don’t have a camera with you, you can’t take the shot. We believe that our solution is better for most people. It’s good to have full-frame, but there is a need for a smaller system. This is why Maitani’s R&D philosophy is so important to us.

We believe that the market will be separated into two. One is larger, full-frame, and the other is more portable cameras and lenses. We’re happy that everyone else is going to bigger sensors, and we’re staying where we are. I’m confident, and I’m proud to say that we’re staying here. It doesn’t make sense for us to go full-frame. There is a place for full-frame, and a place for medium format, but our customers can’t [be limited to] three frames per second. There is a customer base that needs the products we offer now, and they need a compact and lightweight system.


Editors’ note: Barnaby Britton and Carey Rose

Perhaps the most striking takeaway from our conversation with Mr Murata is his confidence that Olympus is right to buck the general trend towards bigger sensors. He couldn’t have been clearer that whereas close competitors like Panasonic and Sony have opted to expand into full-frame, he isn’t interested in developing products for any mount other than Four Thirds.

It’s unusual to hear this kind of unequivocal – very specific – statement of intent from senior executives at major companies. Normally in conversations with press, we’re told that all possible doors are open ‘depending on the market’, but Mr Murata couldn’t have been clearer. “We won’t use any other mount other than Four Thirds […] we’re staying where we are”. You heard it here first.

It remains to be seen whether the E-M1X will attract the professional photographers that Olympus wants, but it’s certainly true that it can do some things that larger-format cameras cannot. There isn’t a full-frame camera on the market that can shoot Raw+JPEG frames at 60fps, or combine several frames taken in an instant to output an 80MP file. Likewise Live ND, which simulates the effect of an ND filter without the hassle of actually having to use one, and a stabilization system capable of 7.5EV of correction (thanks to a new gyro mechanism and tweaked software).

Will we see banks of Zuiko lenses on the sidelines at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics? Only time will tell

It’s quite likely, too, that the E-M1X is the toughest professional camera on the market. Durability and weather-sealing are notoriously hard to test (unless you test to destruction, which we don’t) but an officially-quoted IPX1 rating and a promise that the camera is sealed based upon experience learned from the ‘TOUGH’ series compacts is encouraging. Some DPReview commenters have balked at the E-M1X’s $ 3000 MSRP, but it’s worth remembering that this is only a little more than half the cost of a Nikon D5.

Alongside the Sony a9 (with upcoming firmware) the D5 is a benchmark camera for autofocus performance and reliability, and with the E-M1X Olympus is clearly launching a challenge for that crown. Using machine learning, Olympus’s engineers have effectively ‘trained’ a model to recognize certain subjects (automobiles, airplanes and trains, for now) and this model – which houses a large dataset – is integral to how the E-M1X’s autofocus tracking system operates. This isn’t artificial intelligence so much as machine learning (or ‘deep learning’) but if you’re shooting planes, trains or automobiles with the E-M1X you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

While we’re told that some E-M1X features might be added to the E-M1 II via firmware, this predictive tracking model relies on the dual processors of the ‘X’. Will we see banks of Zuiko lenses lined up on the sidelines at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics? Only time will tell, but the E-M1X is definitely a step in the right direction.

Learn more about the new pro M43 Olympus OM-D E-M1X

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on ‘Sensor size isn’t the answer’ – Olympus exec explains the thinking behind E-M1X

Posted in Uncategorized

 

CamRanger Mini is half the size, two thirds of the price and has over twice the range

13 Sep

Ahead of the launch of the CamRanger II the company has announced a mini version of its wireless remote control system that it says has a longer range than the original in a body half the size. The CamRanger Mini does much the same things as the original model did, but now has a reach of 400 feet and will cost 2/3rd of the price.

Designed to work with Canon and Nikon DSLR systems the device acts as a go-between to connect a camera with a tablet or phone. It allows users to preview what the camera is seeing and to take control of basic, and in some cases more advanced, settings before triggering the shutter.

As was announced, the company has produced a new app to run the CamRanger II, and it appears to have made it available to use first with the CamRanger Mini. The Mini is said to be slightly faster than the original model, and now the app offers equal support for iOS and Android products, as well as 200% live view magnification and a level, pinch zoom functions and a more automated focus stacking process.

There is no mention of Fujifilm and Sony support, as there will be with the CamRanger II, but there’s a good chance the firmware will be updated at some stage to allow this.

The CamRanger Mini is available now for £229.99/$ 200. For more information see the CamRanger website.

Press release

Smaller price, Smaller size…

Introducing the NEW CamRanger MINI

New CamRanger MINI enables remote live view and firing of a Canon or Nikon DSLR camera from up to 120m (400ft) away, via a tablet or smartphone, with the ability to modify exposures and settings completely wirelessly.

The CamRanger MINI hardware and free app work together to create their own Wi-Fi network, even in remote locations, without relying on another network or router. This offers the ability to change the camera’s shutter, aperture, ISO and white balance, along with many other settings. The powerful app even has the ability to run more advanced functions such as focus-stacking, time-lapse and HDR photography.

This new device is ideal for any application where remote view and capture are useful or even essential, such as nature and macro photography, wildlife and birdwatching plus commercial applications where having a camera in a high, tight or remote location is necessary. Controlling a Nikon or Canon DSLR camera with a smartphone or tablet has just become easier.

The built-in Lithium-ion battery lasts about 3-4 hours and is charged through the micro-USB port. Wi- Fi range is over 120m (400ft), though the range depends greatly on the exact location and scenario. The CamRanger MINI works with most Nikon and Canon DSLRs and the included case can be used for carrying, storage and attaching to the camera or tripod.
The CamRanger Mini app is available for iOS and Android and is free download from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Both the Android and iOS apps have been completely revamped from the original CamRanger app.

  • Wirelessly stream live view from the camera to your tablet or phone
  • Wirelessly capture images or trigger from the camera
  • Thumbnails automatically appear on the top of the screen after taking a picture
  • Images are always saved to the camera card and can optionally be saved to your device
  • Pinch zoom or double tap to view the image at up to 200%
  • Double tap to increase magnification, Single tap to focus on an area or fine tune
  • Can be configured to take a series of pictures automatically varying Shutter Speed, Aperture, ISO
  • Can be configured as an intervalometer to take time lapse sequences
  • View and change camera settings remotely
  • Use a variety of overlays: grid lines, file name, EXIF data, histogram

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on CamRanger Mini is half the size, two thirds of the price and has over twice the range

Posted in Uncategorized