Olympus exec declares "twelve megapixels is enough"
By Donald Melanson 
posted Mar 9th 2009 6:01PM
posted Mar 9th 2009 6:01PM
The megapixel race has been declared over plenty of times before, but we're guessing that there will be more folks than ever in agreement with Olympus exec Akira Watanabe's recent statement that twelve megapixels is "enough for covering most applications most customers need." In addition to that blanket declaration, Watanabe said that Olympus has "no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System" (its line of DSLRs), adding that it would instead focus on other features like dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting. On that latter front, Watanabe predicts that autofocus could be one of the big areas of innovation in DSLRs, with current "phase detect" systems giving way to new and improved image sensor-based autofocus systems. So, what do you think? Is twelve enough, or is the more megapixels the merrier? Sound off in comments.[Via Ars Technica]
for the time being (that being the key phrase) i agree with him.
+1
I think definitely 12mp is enough, for the time being, as long as other aspects of cameras improve.
The megapixel race is more for marketing purposes, as to the general public more = better, and for this reason alone, the megapixel race will continue, until another number can be recognized as a 'rating' for cameras.
I also agree, for most people, that 12 megapixels is enough resolving power, but there is more to a cmaera than a sensor, like the quality of the lens.
Also, I agree that camera manufactures need better dynamic range and ISO performance. (Or I should say, I want better performanbce.)
Having said that, I work in an advertising agency and in controled lighting conditions, megapixels is king. I work with a 1Ds body and only L lenses...
Eventually, megapixels should be increase WITH THE OTHER FEATURES....
M
Why for the time being? The megapixel count in no way limits the enhancement of other aspects. It could be argued that instead this focus on increased density means time and resources are being placed in a needless areas. The areas in which a professional photographer is resolution limited are in cropping and some still object model photography. Even then, those photographers should be instead using film which is of a much higher resolution.
Resolution is like megahertz. It is a number that people associate because it provides them a sense of scale. Just like horsepower, just like tornado scales, hurricane scales, etc. In the industries where actual knowledge of the field exists the use of such scales are laughably pointless. Just like megapixels and megahertz in the modern camera or computer world.
Size of print needs to be taken into consideration, some people want to print a 20/30 which you can do with a 12mp but the resolution does start to show at that point. Other than that though 12 MP is fine.
The biggest issue I want is noise reduction and full sized sensors so I don't have to do funky conversions to figure out what my old 50mm lens will actually look like when I put it on my camera.
@Skrying
Fine we will both buy the same computer, the only difference is mine will have a Quad 2.6GHz processor and I'll give you a Celeron 1.2ghz processor, and we will see who will be laughing running windows vista. Hint: It won't be you.
I'm not sure "for the time being" is even necessary to say. The fact of the matter is that film cameras stuck with 35mm frame sizes for a long time, and the only potential quality improvement was in the film itself. Yes, some people used larger formats, but most didn't. And the quality of the film did NOT improve as fast as pixel densities have been improving.
There is a point beyond which you don't want to blow up a picture, and, frankly, 12mp is big enough for all but the largest reproductions. Even though you might want to crop and blow *that* up, you'll start seeing artifacts from imperfect sensors and lenses before you start seeing the individual pixels as being too blocky.
But then, my DSLR only does 6mp and I know for a fact that the biggest problems with the picture I take are, in order:
1. Crappy photographer
2. Crappy lenses
Pixel density on the sensor doesn't factor in anywhere, and this is on an SLR. 12mp on a pocket camera is utterly pointless.
"enough for covering most applications most customers need."
should be
"enough for covering most applications most consumers need."
If what you do is take pictures and view them on your monitor, then 3 mega pixels is more than enough
If what you do is print 4x6 images the 3 mega pixels is enough
If you want to print nice 8x10s then 5 mega pixels is enough, although to get to 300 DPI you want at least 7MP
If you want to print 19x13s then 12 MP may be enough, but your effective DPI is about 120. to get to 300DPI you need a 22MP image
If you want to print a poster, 12MP is definitely not enough.
The problem is, as the size of a printed image increases the number of pixels increases as a square. a 4x6 image is 24 sq inches. an 8x12 image is 96 sq inches, for example.
@unixsystemsengineer
finally someone actually understands that megapixels matter a boat-load less that many other factors in a camera such as ISO performance (highly degraded as MPs increase in all but the most expensive cameras).
hey people! its not the pixels you are going to see even on poster-sized prints. the noise (grain) and the chromatic aberration will make your eyes bleed by the time you blow it up big enough to see blocky pixels. i am so sick and tired of hearing about megapixels that don't even matter. get a decent SLR and an amazing prime lens (like a F1.8 50mm or for telephoto a 300mm 2.8 or something of the sort) and you will get the best prints regardless of MP rating.
@craigJ - i agree with your breakdown, but i don't think you need to print the larger images like a 13"x19" at 300dpi. i print them frequently on my Epson R1800 from my 40D images (10mp). 300dpi is considered magazine quality and you don't hold a 13"x19" print up close to your face like a magazine. you back away from a print this size (or larger) and that print resolution is not necessary when you take a step back.
@alexmueller No, the comparison is more like between a 2.0 Ghz Pentium 4 and a 2.0 GHz Core Duo.
If megahertz were a magic scale that worked for everything, both of those would be equivalent. Hint: They're not.
I disagree. 12 megapixels will always be enough so long as human eyes don't undergo a sudden evolutionary leap.
Hell 5MP and decent lens are enough...
I don't know anybody that prints digital photos. In my book, the MP race was over long ago as it's pointless having umpteen MP for only looking at them on screen needing to zoom out to 25% to see more than somebody's eye.
Agreed. 5MP is plenty good for an 8x10 enlargement -- the largest most consumer printers can print. By my calculations, 12MP is good for a 13x19 enlargement. If the consumer is going larger than that, they need to move up to a professional-level camera.
Hell, back in 2001, I took photos of my friend's wedding using a top-quality 3MP camera with a great lens, and even looking at the 8x10 enlargements today after being professionally printed, I can barely tell the pictures are digital.
yep. 12 is enough for general use, for now.
better to 'FOCUS' on other aspects, now.
Well, 12 megapixels is gonna be just fine for a good while, & people arent gonna be able to fantom this now, but we arent always gonna be using prints to display our photos & they'll eventually die-out (not completely but for the most part) being replaced by digital frames. And also, I'll tell you one thing that no one has touched on why more megapixels are essential...monitor resolution & future-proofing that image of yours.
What I mean is, as monitor resolutions get bigger & bigger, a measly 6 MP image at around 3000x2000 res is gonna run out of viewing space FAST when viewing on a website or on your desktop. That means in the near future, when we are all using big honking monitors with big honking resolutions, your stuff's gonna look mighty small compared to shots that were taken more recently or with more megapixels early on.
It's basically gonna be the equivalent of looking at a 1 or 2 MP (1600x1200) image right now on a monitor with a 2560x1600 or even a 1920x1200 screen resolution (which are hella common these days). I know what you're thinking. "That's so far off it doesn't even matter", right?? No, not really. It was just 6 years ago that 2 MP cameras were the cat's meow.
Just saying. Megapixels DO matter. It's not all that matters (quality of course is the main thing), but it's still very important. You gotta pack in enough to future-proof the image while still not going overboard but retaining quality.
For most shutterbug-happy consumers, 12 MP is more than enough. The megapixel race should've been over for consumers back at 6 MP (the Nikon D40, which is a damn fine DSLR).
HOWEVER - 35mm film's detail is over the equivalent of 80 MP - include the high dynamic tonal and color range of film, and that figure doubles. 4x5 large-format film is equivalent to over a gigapixel, and of course some people shoot even bigger than that. No way in hell are the megapixel wars over for the professional landscape photographer.
@wicked: Can you give some links/data to back up your claims?
@brian.
What you say is probably true, however, I think it depends on the subject matter. People typically don't examine a photo from close range, however, there are many cases where the extra detail is noticeable. I recently saw a photograph of a mountain ridge, there were many, like 100+ pine trees in the shot. there were 2 versions, one taken with a 4 x 5 camera, and scanned. And another taken with a Nikon (D1, I think). Anyway, at poster size you could actually see the individual needles on the trees in the 4x5 shot. in the other shot you could see some of the needles, but the difference in the level of detail is striking. Now, this is more than just mega pixels, but the point is, in order to capture fine detail, you need high resolution capture media, whether that is a cmos or film. You can't print information that doesn't exist, you can only interpolate it and print that.
It's also not readily apparent until you see the images side by side. On their own both images probably look great, but when seen juxtaposed, the image with more detail will appear sharper and more lifelike. This same is tru for SD vs HD tv. You think your up scaling DVD player looks great, and it does, until you view a properly mastered BluRay disc next to the DVD and you realize what detail you're not seeing with the DVD
Having said all this. I would say that anything more that 4 or 5 megapixles with a cheap plastic lens is stupid. In order to capture the fine detail you need quality optics, and them ain't cheap.
@ Wicked
As a photographer, its impossible to compare digital to film.
As for large format 4x5 and up, the are ways. For example, I have a full frame DSLR, and I will zoom in to about 135mm and take a photo of about 7 images across and 3-4 down and stitch them together in PS. The files are HUGE. At 21.1 megapixel I'm averaging at about 500 megapixel.
Fun stuff.
However I do believe that 12 is enough for the average person.
You guys aren't factoring in photoshop using graphic designers who need the extra resolution to create more accurate images for editing and publishing. Im saying we don't need more than 12 but all those other numbers you guys are throwing around for "consumers" are a little too low.
Even 5MP is enough if it had a decent quality set of pixels rather than the crap phones churn out, Even at 8mp camera phones give pictures that are quite grainy even on an A5 print. While if they were pixel perfect they would blow up nicely and would still look good.
This is because of sensor size but more importantly lens quality.
Its all about marketing though with the herd that is the general public.
My samsung cellphone can do 5mp! wouaaah... but the lens is crap... shiiiiit. Its better than most phone out there but its not enough quality to justify the 5mp tag. Photos taken with it are just as good as cheap disposable camera.
Pretty much... it's not the megapixel count that matters, since you can have a lousy cameraphone with a vga sensor produce a ressed-up 5 megapixel image (yes, it's been done). You also can't compare the output of a compact (especially not from Olympus) with an image of the same megapixel count from a DSLR, or even among compacts. Megapixels mean very little.
However, I've heard the "xxx is enough" statement so many times, and it's been proved wrong just as many times. Remember when they said that 64k of memory "is enough" for computers? How much memory is considered just barely usable today? Around 1GB, which is more than *ten thousand* times what was considered "enough".
I'm not surprised that a statement like this comes from Olympus... they're not very in touch with their consumers.
ahh yea, just like 64K is enough Ram ....
Those are different things... Computer memory and mega-pixels are different. More memory helps a ton in computing, but having 10 megapixels over 8 means nothing if you cannot get the shot right, or have applications capable of using the higher resolution etc...
I mean, I'd rather take a quality 8 mega-pixel camera over a sub-par 12 mega-pixel camera anyday.
And just so you know, that quote you said, trying to reference bill gates, is completely wrong and false. It was 640K ought to be enough and Bill in fact never said that.
Heres his response, "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time. Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."
@HC
Some people work with photos in graphic design and 8MP is not enough.
double fail
1. 640K, not 64K
2. This is a myth, and he didn't really say that
Ever heard of cropping or "smart zooms" HC? You know, where they crop or magnify a subject to 3MP from a 12MP image?
HC, you're friggin delusional.
Megapixels just take bigger shots; it doesn't make them good.
He will eat his words in about 4 months.
Go lay some bricks in Jersey.
i heard there's douchebags there
In most cases, twelve megapixels is plenty enough. But when you reach pro-level, some pros need the higher megapixel count (Think Nikon D3x) for large format printing, or if they demand a larger photo for whatever reason. But, for normal consumer use of it's SLRs, I think focusing on image quality is better.
~Jake
that's what medium format cameras are for
That's when you get into high-end full frame sensors, or even the F-series Nikons and start to enter the realm of Hasselblad medium format. Olympus has never really entered that particular market (in fact I can't even find a camera by them that does medium format), so for them 12MP is enough.
As a hobbyist photographer, even with the photos I end up printing, I can't see really needing larger than 10MP anytime soon. As others have said above, It's more about the photographer and the quality of glass than how many MP can be crammed on a sensor.
12 megapixels is not only enough, it's probably too much. 1080p resolution, the current standard for high definition video,is but a mere 2 megapixels. I know video and still images are different ballgames for photophiles, but few people outside of a few pixel-crazed professional photographers could tell the difference between anything in the 4-12+MP range.
and most home viewers cant tell the diff between upscaled dvd and HD, unless you make them stand right in front of the tv so that one can count the pixels of the edge of a still frame...
Its all in the lens, my friend...which is why I don't buy Olympus.
Uh, dude... Olympus zuiko (35mm film) and now Zuiko Digital are some of the best lenses ever made. I'm a nikon person, but I know full well Oly optics are top notch.
What?! Clearly, you need to read some reviews!
sorry buddy but Olympus is know to have some of the best optics in the field. Some would argue that the only lens maker that does better is Leika. There are many reasons to chose an other dslr maker over Olympus but lenses is not one of them.
You obviously have no experience with lenses. The Zuiko line of lenses are top notch. The 50mm f/2 is ranked as one the best lenses made. The OM 50mm 1.8/ 1.4 are STUNNING lenses as well.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_50_2_o20/page4.asp
Quote, "Certainly in terms of the studio results, it's the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens"
Come back with an education please.
Too bad Olympus lenses are made in China
They are actually made in Japan....I am also a Nikon shooter but am well aware of their amazing optics!!
Honestly man... what the hell are you smoking? I can't think of a better set of glass... the new 14-54mm zuiko is the single best glass I've ever owned... and with my prime 50mm on the way I can know I have near perfection.
Olympus only really lacks in their choice of sensor (the 4/3's system) but I have no real qualms when I shoot professionally. As a side-note I have used/owned Mark III's and Nikons top-notch, but I love my E-3 more than anything now. Nothing matches Oly color.
No I iKurt I think for you it's "too bad Apple doesn't make lenses, or cameras."
Why hinder innovation? I agree that autofocus and other features are needed but why decide that they are going to stop innovating in a field and more in others?
then again its not my company....
Since when is megapixels="innovation".
What's more important is image quality, most photography is destined for print or online. At 300dpi printing, anything above 10MP is diminishing returns unless you're printing billboards. What's more important in dynamics range, chromatic accuracy, and low-light sensitivity. That is "innovation", not 20MP cellphone cameras.
how many people print pictures now? most of the time it is a slideshow or displaying them on your TV using your ps3 or something like that
and we are talking baout dslrs's not cellphones, but would it hurt to have a 20mp cameraphone
i think not
don't piss on my dreams of marketing delusions, Akira!
It all depends on the sensor size.
Therefore the "ahh yea, just like 64K is enough Ram ...." comment is not accurate.
It's stupid to have 50MP but the same sensorsize.
Having more MPs only increases image noise - so "if they keep the current sensorsize they shouldn't go beyond 15mp in any case".
The more, the merrier. You never know when you'll want to blow something up and/or crop something down. More megapixels means more options. Of course, he is right in the sense that it is more important to focus on image quality. As the megapixels go up, the optics have to match, which becomes very difficult and expensive quickly.
oops, I didn't mean to repeat you
I have a tough time assuming that any form of technology should be "done". Most photographers know that anything more than 6 mega pixels is enough for "normal shooting" but I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to blow something up to dimensions that I hadn't thought I would want initially. It's the exceptions that kill ya.
Overall though I think the comments by Watanabe are very good for the overall picture (pardon the pun) of the industry. Too many companies try to woo us by selling megapixels we don't need but then put crap everywhere else.
> I have a tough time assuming that any form of technology should be "done".
If technology - sensors & optics - would allow to cheaply go above 12MP, then there would be no point to hold it.
Otherwise, you should consider that human eye isn't that precise anyway: we first look at the composition and the content of the photo. Very few people look anywhere outside center of the picture. As soon as mind "gets" the content of picture, pixels or even minor caveats would be literally invisible to many.
Think JPEG and how they fool human eyes into *not* seeing the artifacts.
Bad Economy = 12MP is enough
Good Economy = 12MP is ok
Great Economy = 12MP is nothing
Economics? Meh. I see some merit in the argument, but if that was really the case, Canon and Nikon would be aiming for medium format levels in MPixels already (like, say, 50 to 60). It seems like that's not really the case with either (rumors of an MX sensor not withstanding). Which is notably why, say, Leica and RED are going to make a killing for themselves, Tyler Perry-style.
@???
It's called a joke.
@???
RED make a killing? Highly unlikely. Don't get me wrong, I like Jim Jannard, and I like RED as a company, but it's best summed by Mike DesRoches, the head of the Sony XDCAM EX US Design Team: Sony could throw a cheaply made 12.1 MP CMOS censor in a camera. We could do high compression RAW encoding, akin to REDCODE. You want to know where Sony does those things? In our consumer line. All RED has done is take consumer camera design philosophy, and apply it to a professional line. Compare the image quality of RED to a Panavision Genesis, and you'll see a clear difference. Compare the Color range and accuracy of the RED to a Sony F23 or F35, and you'll see a clear difference. Sony could have made the RED ONE five years ago. We didn't for a reason.
Same philosophy. just like how just because RED's 4K is bigger doesn't make it better, a 20MP imager isn't better than a well made 12 MP Censor.
Four megapixels was enough. I'm sure everyone would rather have better prices.
I tend to agree. I have a 2 MP nikon that Iv'e been using for a few years now, and its more than good enough for the touristy pics I usually take. I would rather have sharper, more quality images than more pixels.
I'd rather have:
Less noise
Faster AF and shutter response
Better low light sensitivity
Better quality AF
Better lenses
4MP is more than enough.
"640K of memory should be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates
And look how well Bill Gates did.
why the low ranking?
this gates' quote immediately popped into my head when I saw the title of this post.
I like being able to crop in close, this is where the more the merrier. with twelve I can crop the elf, but with thirty I can crop the mushroom she's holding. in other words, every level of zoom is a unique composition for example see: http://www.gigapxl.org/
OK, but it's not all the time that you really get 12MP of resolution. I mean, that only happens when (a) it's sunny, (b) the subject is in perfect focus (and within depth of field), (c) you're using a lens that isn't subject to distortion at the current aperture/focal length/etc. Personally I find that the resolution of my 10MP camera is not always reached already. The results look great in sunlight - they look not so great when it's a little dark and you have to use ISO800 (or worse).
I'd like to see:
* Increased dynamic range (as in, the camera can sense higher levels of brightness before it gives up and goes 'uh, white')
* Reduced noise (as in, the camera is able to more accurately handle low levels of brightness)
* Some work on true colour sensors that have RGB at every pixel, whether this be via the Foveon method (I don't get the impression those sensors are that great in other respects) or some other (e.g. how about making a sensor with four times the 'megapixels' but putting a filter/diffuser/whatever above each RGBG cluster which can then be treated as a single pixel? Maybe that wouldn't work, but just saying - there must be some other way to improve the current situation).
More megapixels is nice and all, but a camera that really genuinely gives high-quality results in poor light would be a lot better...
@sam
What you should do is check out the Sony F35. It's their top of the line motion picture camera, but they did exactly what you said, only with a 6 pixel array. the result is color beyond the pickup of film. check out the color in Speed Racer's Raw footage (pre enhancement) to see just how cool it loooks. 13 MP censor, with 6 pixel clusters diffused into one pixel, to result in a 2.1 MP 1080p image. amazing.
"Twelve megapixels is enough" and "nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM" either.
12MP is certainly enough if they are clean quality pixels, otherwise it is just too much.
In a few years, maybe 5 or so, when CPU performance has increased more (processing RAW 12MP images is slow enough as it is) and sensor technology allows for more resolution without dropping image quality any noticable amount, and the glass isn't a limiting factor, going above 12 would be fine but for now, in most snappy cams, going above 6-8 is a waste of time.
Something something something 640K. ...oh wait.
I want more, so when I take the family pictures I can zoom in to the cellular level.
...and u can see your own cellulite.
It all depends upon the application. For some things, there is no such thing as enough resolution. For the rest, many things make a good picture, and resolution is just a single one among them.
Like what print 10'x12' posters? Or cropping things down 100x fold?
Is it enough for a decent print? Yeah, so was 6.
Will it still be common 5 years from now? Probably not.
I agree that 12 megapixels is enough for most purposes (especially when most dSLR owners just show off their photos online to friends now, or moms who make their own small prints at home). The cameras that are truly loaded with megapixels are not marketed to those people though, but people who produce magazine prints, billboards, and posters. I love my 8 mp rebel XT for my purposes though.
Generally speaking, it is theoretically better to have a less dense sensor, so the bigger the sensor, the more "clean" a photo will come out (less noise from heat). However, with recent innovations by Canon and Nikon, the sensors have been allowed to dissipate this heat better and still resolve clean images. This is a fantastic place to be at, high resolution and less heat :). I just worry that with that pixel war wagging, we will get more products like the 50D that produce higher resolution photos that don't look quite as good as their predecessors (I swear that thing produces some pretty soft photos). So I agree and disagree, keep moving forward with the pixel count, but don't sacrifice the image quality while you are at it.
All in all, I am still sticking to the old "invest in glass" theory. After-all, you cannot always stay at the forefront...
The 50D produces soft-looking images because of the higher pixel density reducing the aperture at which you become diffraction limit. Stopping down beyond f/4 on that thing only brings about more diffraction. Compare this to about f/5.6 - 8 on a 40D. This means though that you can't stop the lens down as much to reduce spherical aberrations, and thus generally soft-looking images.
I vote for better image quality! I'm OK with 12MP, infact... if the quality is good, I'm ok with less Megapixels. There is no benefit what-so-ever with a huge amount of Megapixels. And... don't give me that croping argument. A good quality photo with less Megapixels crops just fine.
Completely agree, D40 with the kit lens blows most consumer cameras to pieces and it's only 6MP. It's the quality of the lens and the decency of the sensor not how many pixels they cram onto it that counts.
I've never had to print above A4 and i don't see myself needing to in the foreseeable future.
^^^ Totally why I bought the D40. I'll put my money into glass thank you very much.
My 42" wide plotter says no, 12 megapixels is not enough.
your 42" plotter says "get a Nikon D3x and I'll be happy" :D
He's right, at least for now. When the lenses/optics/various other aspects of the camera catch up, I think then will be the time for another megapixel boost. But constantly boosting the megapixels without improving anything else will yield only a crappy image of higher resolution.
I think this is why 8MP cell phone cameras take trash pictures, even when stacked up against a bargain basement point-and-shoot. Hell, my old Pentax Optio SV's photos looked better than that of the high-megapixel cell phone cameras. (And that old thing is 4 years old, and only 5 MP)
Simply put, the industry seems to be using megapixels as a marketing term, and nothing more. Give me more megapixels when the rest of the camera has been improved.
I just got the old 5D and I can say that 12 MP are plenty and if you push me I would tell you that 6 good MP are enough for 90% of the time.
I have a 12mp kodak digital camera. Not by choice, but I have it. It works like utter shit. Sure, your files may be extraordinarily large, but the camera itself eats batteries for breakfast and leaves a bunch of artifacts on the picture, green, yellow, pooh. I say, improve the quality of the cameras, and maybe introduce an algorithm where you can take like 4 pictures at the same time to give higher quality. I don't know much about how cameras work, but please make me look like a poster girl in one shot, not 5 and photoshopping the artifacts out.
Yes.. I just said poster girl.
Yeah, you said "poster girl." So?
I just picked up a used 8-megapixel DSLR. It blows my friend's little 10-megapixel point&shoot out of the water.
Similarly, the 2-megapixel camera on my old Nokia N90 was unbelievably better than the 3-megapixel camera on my T-Mobile G1.
Optics+sensor are what to look at when buying a camera, not pixels. Unless you're being printed in large formats, even 5 megapixels in plenty.
Absolutely 12 is enough. Problem is, most consumers want one single statistic that tells them how good a gadget is. Like 1080p with televisions (even though it is meaningless for TVs less than 50"). So you can expect the megapixels fight to keep going on.
Even a 6-Megapixel like a Nikon D50 is perfectly fine and has a wonderful touch to it. Its more important to have good optics.
Is it bad that I'm still on 3 megapixels?
Considering there isn't a paper size war, the exec is partially right. If books were getting bigger each year, and so to photographic prints, i could understand, but they aren't. Yes more pixels means you can crop more, they have their uses. Anybody who understand Olympus knows they are trying to set themselves up differently in a crowded market. Leave the big boys for the megapixel wars, Olympus knows they cannot compete.
> Olympus knows they cannot compete.
That's silly. They are pretty well known brand and their cameras are far from being niche. Ask any professional and he'd tell you that Oly does one of the best - and cheap - lenses.
Looking at the prices/features/etc, Olympus is very well positioned against Canikon. No, they aren't going to release 1D/D3x competitor any time soon, but in the mass market (where the sale volumes are) Olympus is doing more than good.
Going beyond 12MP on the 24x36 mm sensor is unnecessary
The pixel density goes through the roof...no good (although the D3x handles this quite well)
On a medium format sized sensor however, 22-28mp is just about perfect
When the average consumer sees a 21mp vs. 12mp, they assume the 21mp camera is better because, well...it has more MP therefore it has to be better
lots of people are quoting the 640k memory is enough thing.....they dont seem to understand peoples eyes dont get more powerful like computers have :s i know there are other factors but at some point humans just wont be able to tell the difference
I think that for now it is plenty enough, and that they need to allow the image processing, and the other aspects of the cameras to improve. Such as the ability of lenses to get a crisp focus, and then when all that is up the par they should slowly advance the technology so that aspects do not become disproportional to the other aspects.
Then also they should not exceed a certain limit on pixel density. As then the light sensitivity will become to low, and the image quality will be very poor. I think that we should not exceed the limit of conventional film. As that is the best media current for capturing images. Remember that this is a digital response the the Analog, and that it will not work the same as the analog.
Of course it's sony and such who fabricate the sensors that also drive the market, as well as the consumer, if people won't buy quality 12Mpixel but instead choose mediocre 20Mpixel what are you gonna do eh.