Panasonic G9, a camera that I've been eyeing lately, has a 3.68 MP panel.The best Panasonic u43 camera and Olympus u43 camera offer 2.36"MDots", about 768x1024-
That's an improvement- "about 1000x1200" resolution. It's what the Leica Q offered in 2016.Panasonic G9, a camera that I've been eyeing lately, has a 3.68 MP panel.
the u43 format is limited to 20mpixels- beyond that you are just resolving more blur from the lens.
I think Brian is referring to the pixel size, and the diffraction limitations....surely this depends on the lens in question? The m43 system has plenty of lenses where every reviewer raves about the sharpness, and none of them have been put in front of a sensor of more than 20mp. So it seems to me you really can't know whether this is the case?
I should've phrased that better, as in 'bigger number (in this case higher megapixel count, in other cases zoom range, frames per seond or what have you) is always better'. The people that buy into the marketing claims that higher numbers are automatically better, I would say, are fairly uneducated.Use a wide-angle lens on your camera and the high frequency content of the image will most likely increase, of course it is scene dependent- leave a lens cap on the camera, change in focal length will not affect frequency content. Most lenses are out-resolved using a Nikon D850. Down-sampling means losing resolution, take a 33MPixel sensor and turn it into an 8mpixel sensor. I would prefer having larger pixels with more material in them to collect the photons, does that make me "uneducated"?
That would be an interesting camera if it ever arrives in m4/3 format, but I'm not going to count on it. I think a lot of people lament that Olympus never released any compact, lightweight, weather sealed primes to go along with the E-M5 models. At least, that is a comment I've seen frequently through the years.As for my hopes for the m43 system: image stabilisation, smallish lenses, largeish sensor but not so large that cooling becomes difficult, reputation for weather sealing... I am waiting for the full control, high quality waterproof / action camera that is the obvious point of differentiation to the competition, either as a system a la Nikon AW1 or as a fixed lens, jacket pocketable compact.
I had to do that for a class I took 8 or 9 years ago. It was a Remote Sensing graduate level class emphasizing image interpretation and enhancement. I'd have a hard time replicating the steps today, but it was fascinating.Not too many people have run 2-D Fourier Transforms on their images.
Hi! Given your last couple of sentences, your conclusion could have been written as, "In short: if you cherish choice and versatility, nothing beats having 2 systems!"I'm glad I kept my system; with the GX9 and the E-M5 III, I now own two cameras that both play to the strengths of the system, and the vast line-up of lenses (among them lots of best-of-breed units) makes the system the most versatile and complete on the market.
To give you one example: Sony and, to a somewhat lesser extend, Fujifilm, have struggled to give us zooms comparable in performance to the 12-40mm f/2.8, and even though both offerings are now out (and at least Sony's lens is a real stunner, whereas Fujifilm's pro zoom is "just" very good), they're both bigger, heavier and more expensive (on all fronts, 20-25% more ...). Add I.B.I.S. in a small body (the E-M5 III is about the same price as the X-T3 and A6400 - both have no I.B.I.S., and the lenses are all unstabilised), and you end up with a more compact, yet more versatile setup that delivers competitive image quality. And guess what? Its humble 12-45mm f/4 stable mate is even better optically, though of course it's only an f/4 zoom - but it's smaller still!
In terms of IQ, there's often surprisingly little between the different systems, at least as far as the 24MP APS-C crowd goes (Fuji's 26MP sensor has particular strengths, Sony's latest sensors have newer, much more efficient technology that brings additional advantages, and Canon outguns everyone else with 32MP resolution). For the record: I cap and APS-C both at ISO 1600, though I go to ISO 3200 with a bit more confidence on APS-C; at base ISO, DR presents - at the most - one stop visible difference; so, nothing judicious pp can't settle (I don't overstretch my files - why should I?). For continued low light shooting, I reach for FF anyway ...
In short: If you cherish choice and versatility, nothing beats !