Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-24-2016, 11:02 AM   #16
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,635
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clockworkrat Quote
The LX100 is the one I was thinking of, but I've a feeling it wasn't the first.
Yup, I check and it's the same principle: a multi-aspect sensor.
Sensor needs to be bigger than usual with respect to the image circle for that to be possible, though.

01-25-2016, 03:39 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,805
QuoteOriginally posted by clockworkrat Quote
The LX100 is the one I was thinking of, but I've a feeling it wasn't the first.
Wit the LX100 there always pixel wasted whatever the aspect ration because basically the sensor is too big for the optics. It allow to keep the optics smaller.

if we take the m4/3 sensor of an omd 10, that is 16MP and 4608x3456, we get:
- 15.9MP at 4/3
- 14.1MP, in 3:2
- 12 MP in 16:9
- 11.9MP 1:1

if we take the LX100 we get:
- 12.7 MP at 4/3
- 12.2 MP at 3:2
- 11.3 MP at 16:9
And you could manually crop to 1:1 for 9.5MP

The thing that adapt itself is just a trick: you can't never use the whole sensor and never get as much as if you have a real m4/3 lens. It was so funny to me when I read reviewers in awe with it for something that is nothing more than wasted sensor area to simplify Olympus suply chain and keep the lens small...

Ironically, the biggest issue people have against the LX100, is its limited resolution (!) compared to the 1" 20MP sensors. Would they have used a m4/3 capable lens, they would had a bigger design or smaller apperture but would have offered better picture quality in all aspect ratios and quite noticably in 4/3, 3/1 and 1:1... Only 19:9 is very similar in both designs.

I think the camera is great, but we have to recognize a trick when we see one.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-25-2016 at 03:48 PM.
01-25-2016, 11:53 PM   #18
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,635
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Wit the LX100 there always pixel wasted whatever the aspect ration because basically the sensor is too big for the optics. It allow to keep the optics smaller.

*snip*
...it would have been perfect with a circular (ok, square but covering the full image circle) RAW... but then people would probably complain about how ugly the RAW were, what with the no-data corners and the big vignette...
That way no part of the sensor readout is ever lost, not before choosing the final crop (in post).
01-26-2016, 02:59 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,805
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
...it would have been perfect with a circular (ok, square but covering the full image circle) RAW... but then people would probably complain about how ugly the RAW were, what with the no-data corners and the big vignette...
That way no part of the sensor readout is ever lost, not before choosing the final crop (in post).
The sensor itseft it 4:3, to have full circle would be a circle under the 1:1 ration so with lot of information lost... and a circle covering the whole width would require a square or round sensor., otherwise you would have just rounder borders en the left and right.

Counting sensor are cut from wafers, having a round sensor mean you loose a big part of the available surface and increase cost.

Both way it make no practical sense. It was done only because m4/3 is still a somewhat small not so costly sensor and that it was more efficiant to keep using an existing sensor than to have one dedicated to the optics with increased cost, inventory, design and so own. There really nothing more to it.

01-27-2016, 01:13 PM   #20
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,635
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The sensor itseft it 4:3, to have full circle would be a circle under the 1:1 ration so with lot of information lost... and a circle covering the whole width would require a square or round sensor., otherwise you would have just rounder borders en the left and right.

Counting sensor are cut from wafers, having a round sensor mean you loose a big part of the available surface and increase cost.

Both way it make no practical sense. It was done only because m4/3 is still a somewhat small not so costly sensor and that it was more efficiant to keep using an existing sensor than to have one dedicated to the optics with increased cost, inventory, design and so own. There really nothing more to it.
True that, makes sense.
01-27-2016, 04:08 PM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,328
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Wit the LX100 there always pixel wasted whatever the aspect ration because basically the sensor is too big for the optics. It allow to keep the optics smaller.

if we take the m4/3 sensor of an omd 10, that is 16MP and 4608x3456, we get:
- 15.9MP at 4/3
- 14.1MP, in 3:2
- 12 MP in 16:9
- 11.9MP 1:1

if we take the LX100 we get:
- 12.7 MP at 4/3
- 12.2 MP at 3:2
- 11.3 MP at 16:9
And you could manually crop to 1:1 for 9.5MP

The thing that adapt itself is just a trick: you can't never use the whole sensor and never get as much as if you have a real m4/3 lens. It was so funny to me when I read reviewers in awe with it for something that is nothing more than wasted sensor area to simplify Olympus suply chain and keep the lens small...

Ironically, the biggest issue people have against the LX100, is its limited resolution (!) compared to the 1" 20MP sensors. Would they have used a m4/3 capable lens, they would had a bigger design or smaller apperture but would have offered better picture quality in all aspect ratios and quite noticably in 4/3, 3/1 and 1:1... Only 19:9 is very similar in both designs.

I think the camera is great, but we have to recognize a trick when we see one.
I can't recall all the details but they claim this is to reduce the influence that the aspect ratio has on the angular coverage of the lens. This isn't entirely true since you do get slightly wider coverage with 16:9 than 3:2 but I will try to dig up their explanation. They explain how a traditional approach would differ if you only cropped to aspect ratio. Frankly I find quibbling over a few MP silly. The sensor in my LX7 is a native 12MP sensor but the max I can get out of it is 10MP. I don't miss the extra 2MP.
01-27-2016, 11:35 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,805
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I can't recall all the details but they claim this is to reduce the influence that the aspect ratio has on the angular coverage of the lens. This isn't entirely true since you do get slightly wider coverage with 16:9 than 3:2 but I will try to dig up their explanation. They explain how a traditional approach would differ if you only cropped to aspect ratio. Frankly I find quibbling over a few MP silly. The sensor in my LX7 is a native 12MP sensor but the max I can get out of it is 10MP. I don't miss the extra 2MP.
This is their marketing justification, one has to be creative.

But on this thread, people were not complaining of this angular coverage of the lense at all, this wasn't even mentionned before. I would say such things are not even really an issue on K-mount because of the registration distance.

This was more about cropping in post and choosing the best aspect ratio and people explaining that when you crop, you loose pixels. Well despite the marketing claims, that stay true with multi factor sensors. You just decide to loose them in all cases, rather for some aspect ratio only.

You can say losing a few more doesn't count sure, but that would not be an asset. And is not that fitting counter argument of people that said the issue with crop is that you loose pixels. Here you lose even more.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-27-2016 at 11:53 PM.
01-28-2016, 12:27 AM   #23
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,635
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
This is their marketing justification, one has to be creative.

But on this thread, people were not complaining of this angular coverage of the lense at all, this wasn't even mentionned before. I would say such things are not even really an issue on K-mount because of the registration distance.

This was more about cropping in post and choosing the best aspect ratio and people explaining that when you crop, you loose pixels. Well despite the marketing claims, that stay true with multi factor sensors. You just decide to loose them in all cases, rather for some aspect ratio only.

You can say losing a few more doesn't count sure, but that would not be an asset. And is not that fitting counter argument of people that said the issue with crop is that you loose pixels. Here you lose even more.
What I had in mind but didn't say yesterday (duh), was that even on the Panasonic they could have added the option to produce a RAW that contained the information from all aspect ratios (plus black pixels filling the gaps - at no additional memory cost since uniform areas are irrelevant when using lossless compression).
Dont know if it's already there (I don't have that camera), but if it isn't, it would have been really sensible IMHO.

01-30-2016, 04:59 AM - 1 Like   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,805
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
What I had in mind but didn't say yesterday (duh), was that even on the Panasonic they could have added the option to produce a RAW that contained the information from all aspect ratios (plus black pixels filling the gaps - at no additional memory cost since uniform areas are irrelevant when using lossless compression).
Dont know if it's already there (I don't have that camera), but if it isn't, it would have been really sensible IMHO.
Sure I agree, and if they could manage to have it open as a stack in images editors, that would be quite fine.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aspect, camera, crop, mean, photography, pictures, ratios, thirds, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Micro Four Thirds Club Laurentiu Cristofor Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 2055 4 Hours Ago 08:02 PM
Kr/Kx or Micro Four Thirds snowfreak Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 07-18-2011 01:12 PM
Pentax and Tokina are designing Micro Four Thirds lenses? jct us101 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 6 01-21-2011 11:50 AM
Micro Four Thirds discussion juu Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 72 11-04-2010 01:42 AM
Pentax seriously considering joining Micro Four Thirds? iht Pentax News and Rumors 2 04-30-2010 11:49 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:27 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top