D'you believe that!

[arthurking83]

First of all, experience has shown me that some folks on the net(but not exclusively) provide some awesome information .. and that other's really can't decide on whether they think one way .. or another.

We all have particular prejudices that sway our own beliefs and opinions to a degree, and the result is that some folks will praise some information as gospel, where other folks will deride that same information as utter crap.
This will no doubt be a product of our own specific prejudices .. and trying to achieve consensus is difficult, if not impossible.

But a comment made it perfectly clear(at least to me) that some people simply aren't worth listening too at all, if it sounds like BS. (most likely if it sounds like it .. then it most likely is).
I don't have any other info on the small excerpt I'm going to provide other than this is what was posted.
ie. it could simply be another bad case of terrible reporting.

A chap high up in a camera company management team said this on another site:

"He said that users of sensors with a similar number of pixels to 40 million had to use a tripod all the time to make their images look sharp... "

Now I have a camera with a pixel count similar to this 40Mp figure .. and I can tell you with 100% certainty .. that I don't use a tripod all of the time to make my images look sharp!

Even taking away the point that some of those users he refers too, also have access to lenses with image stabilisation .. but add that into the equation and this comment smells of cow manure 100%.
Basically what this guy has said,is that without a tripod us D800/810 Sony A7r users can't get sharp images without the use of a tripod.

It must be clearly stated here that this fellow is head of a product and marketing planning division from a major, well known camera brand.
I'm wondering what his background actually is.
if it's purely a marketing one .. then it explains everything about his comment. It's meaningless based on zero knowledge of actual usage of any products.
if he came from a product division of some kind .. say manufacturing .. you'd think he'd have the capacity to try one of those products for himself just to see if his comments make sense.

I know from my images alone .. not to mention the vast amount of images created by others and shared on this WWW .. that cameras with similar pixel counts of up to 40Mp CAN produce sharp images without the use of a tripod.
This is not just a fact .. but a well known fact backed up by evidence.
So I'm wondering .... what chemical is this guy using to get so obviously cranially distorted to produce such a comment that may(or may not) get him laughed out of the industry.

The other aspect of this reportage that got me thinking is one of editorial ability.
Now I've never worked in any way shape or form, in a reportage environment of any sort(no interest in it), but I did study media in later high school, and part of those studies touched on the topics of editorial filtering.
That is, we were studying how an ill considered editorial misjudgement affects the story's ability to portray the truth.
(FWIW: one of my favourite shows on TV is Media Watch .. very funny show).

So what idiot on this very well known website, which I'm sure many have been too for some info at one point in their online/photography travels .. allowed such terrible reportage to go on unhindered?
(if I were the editor)I'd have asked the question to the reporter "what were you thinking not pushing this guy on what he'd just said .. you're fired you idiot!"

So then the question I now pose .. what 'affiliations' does this site have to this company for them to not ask questions that may embarrass this company in question! :rolleye:

I forsake this specific website years ago for other reasons .. and now it's the second last nail in the coffin.
Some of their resources were good to have access too, but now the question is begged .. how unbiased are those resources?


Another subject he touched on, which makes absolutely no sense to me .. and a lot of people seem to think it's an issue as well .. this notion that a purely mechanical shutter will affect an image's sharpness whilst handholding!

That is via the use of an EFC or fully electronic shutter you can get sharper images whilst handholding the camera.
I have to say (and excuse the terminology) but this notion sounds completely retarded to me.
If you're handholding the camera, the least of your sharpness worries are due to a mechanical shutter's operation .. you're handholding for christ sake!

On a tripod .. yes! it makes perfectly good sense, and has been proven to be effective to have the use of at least an EFC.

But handholding? .. seriously .. you're that rock solid in your technique that there is no possible way the handholding technique is affecting sharpness.
It amazes me what people are lead to believe once some hilariously silly internet myth takes hold.

[swifty]

Just a quick question? Was the interview translated in any ways?
Eg. Interview done in another language and the whole text translated? Or interviewed in one language, translated to another for the response then translated back to English.

- - - Updated - - -

Nevermind I found the article. Doesn't say explicitly but I'll have to guess the interview was done in English, translated to Japanese, answered then paraphrased back to English. I'd take the article with a pinch of salt. Whether marketing talk or nuances lost in translation or plain misinterpretation, it's difficult to say as they don't provide a transcript.
I'm aware that the Japanese language is notoriously difficult to interpret and there are many messages one must read between the lines so to speak.

[davsv1]

It can be anything but misinterpretation somewhere, surely, be it in translation or terminology and I do agree it should have been checked and edited before the article was posted.....and yes I did read it too so I know where it can from!

[arthurking83]

J......

Nevermind I found the article. Doesn't say explicitly but I'll have to guess the interview was done in English, translated to Japanese, answered then paraphrased back to English. .....

Aha! never thought of that possible scenario.

I just assumed given the source, it was done in English. But of course the interview was done in Japan so there is a very high probability that it was made in your english-translate-paraphrase routine described manner ... which may explain a reason for where it may have gone wrong.

In that case .. simply bad reporting for not clarifying the situation.

For a head of a camera company to say something like this is very silly.
What happens one day if this company makes a 'similar to 40Mp' sensor too?
Will they market such a camera with the warning that a tripod must be used if all the time if you don't want blurry images?

Then of course there is no mention of pixel densities! This is what makes a camera system prone to effectively producing vibration induced blurriness.

Using the focal length lens on a smaller format system (eg. 200mm or 300mm) produces the same amount of vibration. Problem is the manufacturer in question has sensors with higher pixel densities than these similar to 40Mp full frame sensors!
Technically their cameras will be more prone to vibration induced blurriness than any 135 format sensor until 135 format sensors reach 64Mp levels!

- - - Updated - - -

PS. I'm not trying to keep the identity of the brand secret for any sinister purpose .. it's just so that I'm not looked upon as a brand basher.

I'm hoping people see this post without the prejudices of their preferred brand coming to the fore.

Had any Nikon person high up their ranks said something silly like this .. I'd be loud and clear about my displeasure too.

Nikon have done many strange and stupid things in the past and I've bashed them as hard as I could on those topics, so this has nothing to do with any brand specific identity assassination cause.
It's simply silly commentary .. or lax reporting.

[Steve Axford]

Well, on the same grounds I'm sure we could pick a quote from A King that would prove that he is never to be trusted with any statement about anything. The truth, of course, is not that simple and you have to check what you read on the internet. We also have to excuse people the occasional mistake, or we are all damned, forever.

[ricktas]

I'm aware that the Japanese language is notoriously difficult to interpret and there are many messages one must read between the lines so to speak.

The Japanese also have a trait where the speak this way as well. They talk around a subject and you have to work out what the intent is. For example, an Australian would say 'I got engaged at the weekend', whereas a Japanese lass is likely to say 'I got a ring, it is nice'. I am forever second guessing the intent from my Japanese friend, as she now does the same in English.

[arthurking83]

LOL!..... guilty as charged

Apologies for spreading any dubious information ..... in the past, and possibly into the future.

The problem (and I suspect the major difference here) with this instance is that the person making that claim is high up in the companies management structure.

While I can't ever see them making a 40Mp version of their small sensor .. if other manufacturers do make sensors with such intense pixel densities .. it makes it harder for them to justify any change in philosophy and follow suit.
Like I said, do they issue warnings that all images shot with any high res version of their sensors must be shot with a tripod?

basically it looks bad on the company looking forward into the future, as one of it's official representatives!

Me on the other hand .. when I faux pas .. people just ignore it as the ramblings of a lunatic .. in fact they do that if I have something insightful to offer too .. so I really have nothing to lose
(except that at some point the keys on my keyboard will go far beyond the unrecognisable stage and into a more dissolved state ... I need a new keyboard!)

Ken Rockwell was widely known for his contradictory musings. And while he did claim on his site that his site was strictly for his own personal uses, and for others not to worship it, or obsess over the contents .. fact is many people were following him and looking to him for advice. A lot of it was simply silly!

Fastforward many years now, and I stumbled upon his site again while looking for more info about a lens, and strangely enough I read his thoughts and musings, and they made good sense. I was amused in that his style seems to have changed a bit. Maybe all the negative feedback has mellowed him a bit.
Problem is .. damage has been done. His reputation as a commentator of any sort on things photographic has been irreparably tainted.

[Steve Axford]

I think the Internet tends to promote the idea that any opinion is equal to any other. Look at the anti-vaccination lobby? They look at scientific consensus as a conspiracy. Come to think of it, our PM looks at climate change in the same way. I think KR is quite rational in comparison.

[I @ M]

A chap high up in a camera company management team said this on another site:


"He said that users of sensors with a similar number of pixels to 40 million had to use a tripod all the time to make their images look sharp... "



Now I have a camera with a pixel count similar to this 40Mp figure .. and I can tell you with 100% certainty .. that I don't use a tripod all of the time to make my images look sharp!

The man is clearly a fool.

I like you don't always use a tripod to make my images sharp, we are smart enough to use software to do the sharpening.

[mudman]

if looked at logically, any camera, regardless of pixal count, will give a sharper image mounted on a tripod than hand held. providing
image stability is turned off

[arthurking83]

if looked at logically, any camera, regardless of pixal count, will give a sharper image mounted on a tripod than hand held. ....

I guess this is partly the point I'm trying to make Muddie.

If you shoot a 12mm shot at 1/8000s even with a 100Mp image .. chances are more likely that the image will be sharp.

Had he said something like "well at 1sec exposures .. I think any 40ish Mp camera won't allow you sharp shots if you shoot at 300mm" .. etc, etc.

But the comment is made as a general comment.

Witness many of Lance's images, albeit VR probably turned on .. but does it matter. He's getting sharp images at 500+ mm and whatever shutter speeds .. images are sharp. I doubt a tripod would have made them any sharper tho.

If the comment was made to effectively pump up marketing spiel for their sensor shift technology .. it's failed miserably.
(otherwise as Swifty said, there may have been some loss of resolution in the comment due to possible translation anomalies from Japanese to English .... or something like that)

[swifty]

Yea the article talks about improving the tech such that you can use it hand held so it'd be pretty stupid to preface it by saying you can't get a sharp high MP photo hand held. And the way the article was written just made it impossible to verify exactly what the interviewee actually said or what and the way the question was asked.
A transcript would have been a lot more useful.

- - - Updated - - -

The Japanese also have a trait where the speak this way as well. They talk around a subject and you have to work out what the intent is. For example, an Australian would say 'I got engaged at the weekend', whereas a Japanese lass is likely to say 'I got a ring, it is nice'. I am forever second guessing the intent from my Japanese friend, as she now does the same in English.

And that's everyday conversations. Imagine how ''skilled'' some of these employees are who are authorized by the company to conduct interviews.

[davsv1]

Yea the article talks about improving the tech such that you can use it hand held so it'd be pretty stupid to preface it by saying you can't get a sharp high MP photo hand held. And the way the article was written just made it impossible to verify exactly what the interviewee actually said or what and the way the question was asked.
A transcript would have been a lot more useful.

- - - Updated - - -



And that's everyday conversations. Imagine how ''skilled'' some of these employees are who are authorized by the company to conduct interviews.

I think he was most likely saying larger sensors with the same technology i.e sensor shift, and that being Hasselblad 50mp, will need a tripod to achieve sharp images if using sensor shift, whereas with the new development Oly is doing you will be able to shoot at 1/60th so hand held, no tripod necessary for sharp images.
And I believe the interview was done in the Czech republic, not that that should make any difference.

[swifty]

I think he was most likely saying larger sensors with the same technology i.e sensor shift, and that being Hasselblad 50mp, will need a tripod to achieve sharp images if using sensor shift, whereas with the new development Oly is doing you will be able to shoot at 1/60th so hand held, no tripod necessary for sharp images.

Quite possible. I guess we won't know for sure.

[arthurking83]

OK, so from the DPR interview, we can establish some things.

Interview was done in the Czech republic during a European event. Interviewee most likely has a good grasp of the English language(high possibility anyhow).

The sentence immediately prior to the one I quoted, makes a reference to some research about advantages of the smaller format over full frame sensors.
There's no break other than a full stop there. .. the article then goes on as described in the quoted text I provided.

We can safely assume that the interviewee has a good enough grasp of the English language(or maybe the interview was done in Czech! ), and that the similar to 40Mp sensor refers to any sensor other than Olympus's new hi res capable 40Mp technology.
Only two exist so far in the form of the Sony/Nikon duo and now the Canon D5s/r version (@ 50Mp)

a few things that will become very obvious, even if Olympus gets their handheld mode operational in the future with this hi res mode.

No matter what, the ONLY advantage of their hi res mode is in the almost total lack of any moire, due to the way colour sampling is done at every pixel site.

Offering 1/16000s shutter speed is of no consequence to the system if it's limited to an eventual 1/60s maximum shutter speed .. and also 8s minimum shutter speed.
What if you want more .. or less.

similar to 40Mp sensor already out there have a much greater range of shutter speeds to play with.

Summary: in all bar one scenario the advantages lie with the larger similar to 40Mp sensors both now and into the future.
Give the larger hi res sensors similar technology(err .. Pentax! ) and advantages to smaller lower pixel count sensors become null and void.

Now I realise that this guy is said to be head of marketing at company A, and that he will say anything to drum up points for company A .. but at the expense of common sense?


Back to a point that Steve made: any opinion can be equal to another. This is patently true! I'm not under any illusion that my opinion is more equal to his.
But when his opinion isn't backed by any factual evidence .. and if none exists anywhere from other sources, I have a few that definitely count as proof to the contrary .. should we not question the comment.

I had a read of a review of the new EM5II by a chap named Robin Wong.
Firstly I have to say it was very informative. He gave some good insights as to how the new hi res mode works .. it's advantages and it's failings.
it's a good read, but .. and he does state this on his site: he is an employee of Olympus! Some regional version(can't remember).
Do we then place full trust in the ability of the reviewer to be unbiased? ..... so I entered that site with a high degree of scepticism
Actually in this instance maybe we should .. and so I came out of it with much less scepticism

Robin says something interesting in his review of the hi res mode on the new EM5II .. and the strange thing is that it is partially at odds with what the head marketing guy says about their technology.

The marketing guy said:

"With no mirror action and no mechanical shutter in electronic shutter mode, the OM-D has no internal vibrations to contend with and so has a great resolution advantage. He said that resolution lost to camera shake in DSLRs reduces the advantage of having more pixels"

he should have also specified that the bundled flash must also not be used in hi res mode too, because Robin Wong says:

"I have also tried shooting with wireless flash, and guess what, the flash that is attached to the camera to fire as a commander, to trigger the other wireless flash, will cause a slight vibration when each shot is fired, and that extremely weak pulse is enough to result in unusable final image"

Two employees of the same Company A seemingly at odds with each other to a certain degree.

To be honest I couldn't have imagined in my wildest dreams that a flash, with no real moving parts could pulse so minutely as to render a hi res image unusable!

I've used flash with my 36Mp camera a few times now .. maybe had crappy looking images, but never rendered unusable due to vibrations tho! .. just plain ol crappy looking images.

So to summarise what the head of marketing wants to you to believe:
As long as your willing to restrict yourself to no flash usage, full electronic shutter operation, very solid tripod equipment, shutter speeds currently restricted to between 8s and 2s, if you do dare to use flash, you can do so at sync speed of 1/20s .. and any other limitation they care to dream up .. that their camera's hi res mode is more of an advantage to already established and proven hi res full frame cameras.

[Steve Axford]

He's head of MARKETING! Never let the truth get in the way of a good (marketing line) story.

[swifty]

A couple of points:
1/60 is not the upper shutter speed limit. I can't find the exact reference but have seen photos taken at shutter speeds above 1/1000th second.
Currently it takes about 1 second to execute the 8 half shifts in the high res mode. What he's trying to say is in the future they should be able to get that down to 1/60th second. ie. execute the 8 half shifts at whatever the shutter speed within 1/60th second.
So the implications are that, this mode may become hand-holdable in the future (depending on the focal length, subject etc.), and even on a tripod, it will increase the application for scenes that are largely static but has small movements eg. slight swaying of leaves, branches.

Robin Wong's reviews used to be more objective IMO, before he joined Olympus Malaysia. But his blog is still useful with lots of information, especially early in the release cycle since he does get the jump on many review sites, being an employee and all.

This is version 1.0 of a new use for IBIS. The applications are limited.
But I can't see how this is not exciting for photography as a whole.

I agree there's little advantage of using this against a larger sensor with equal numbers of pixels. But the tech is not restricted to small sensors.
Any sensor using the sensor shift tech will be able to dramatic increase its resolution and pixel density at will if the appropriate application arise. Once some of these v1 technical restrictions are improved with future iterations this can be an incredibly useful tool.
I'd be over the moon if my future Nikon FF can have sensor shift tech.