An insight into why small camera companies find it hard to compete in the digital camera domain with the worldwide shortage of electronic chips that go into a typical digital camera not withstanding other consumer products from simple gadgets to cars use them and the monopoly of chip manufacturers and the technology that make them.
Due to iPhone & Android eating into the consumer digital still cameras the trend now is for camera makers focusing their R&D efforts on larger image sensors like 35mm full frame and 0.79x crop medium format cameras.
Anything smaller is at risk of being eroded further by the smartphone and enthusiasts looking for larger image sensor cameras.
Anything smaller is at risk of being eroded further by the smartphone and enthusiasts looking for larger image sensor cameras.
That is why it is a rule in Journalism that News Reportage Photos must not be digitally altered to remove (or add) something / someone from the scene.
Because then it becomes Fake. And news readers will find that they cannot trust the News organisation anymore.
Mobile phones use computational algorithms to compensate for their pathetic very tiny sensors.
Which is a physical limitation imposed by the phone dimensions. Not too thick and not too big.
Phones evolved from early models having only 1 camera lens to now having many camera lenses, on the rear panel.
Why so many?
To capture data for Augmented Reality (AR) and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
These are phones with FIVE (5) rear panel cameras:
Blackview BL8800 Pro
Honor Magic4 Ultimate
Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 Pro+
Honor Magic3 Pro+
Honor Magic3 Pro
Ulefone Armor 11T 5G
Ulefone Armor 11 5G
Huawei Mate 40 RS Porsche Design
Huawei Mate 40 Pro+
Huawei P40 Pro+
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro
Nokia 9 PureView
If (Nikon, Canon, Sony etc...) digital cameras put in a lot of "computational photography" features into their cameras.
Then what you can get is not what you see. Depending on your settings.
Olympus/OMDS has tried to offer "computational photography" features to offset their physical detriment due to a much smaller M43 sensor.
As far as I know, that stunt has not endeared the camera buying public to Olympus/OMDS. Judging from the % market share statistics.
Some camera companies have built in sensing of what original lens you fit on the camera body.
The camera hardware algorithms will automatically compensate for the distortion of some lenses.
I think Leica does that. Maybe some other companies too.
A friend demonstrated to me how Fake mobile phone images can be, nowadays.
He showed a picture of a pretty Social Media female "influencer".
Then he showed me the real life photo of her without the "beauty enhancing filter" used by mobile phone application.
The difference is scary.
Are you sure every photo journalist follow this rule? Some may not alter the photos, but the angle in which they write the news article is worst than Fake News. eg. the way BBC cover Xin Jiang Cotton. The way they write seems so genuine and yet and there are some hidden agenda which persuaded the readers to believe certain things. You can search on Youtube on how China Foreign Ministry point by point corrected BBC journalists and they are speechless in those live news conference.
Yes, mobile phones manufacturers have cleverly used computational algorithms to improve photo quality which are much more pleasing to everyone.
Yes, you can call it fake, but then photographers also use filters to alter their photo to make them sellable (eg. Gradual desity filter for sunset etc).
At the end of the day, it boils down to what the photographer wants. Does the photographer wants a accurate photo or do they want aesthetic pleasing photos?
Most photographers I know and most of my friends never question how genuine is a photo, they only comment on how nice or how well taken it is. I am surprised that some of my friends who don't shoot photos are aware that most of the photos (birds, models etc) have gone thru digital processing when we are willing a photobook on award winning shots.
Yes, you can call it fake, but then photographers also use filters to alter their photo to make them sellable (eg. Gradual desity filter for sunset etc).
At the end of the day, it boils down to what the photographer wants. Does the photographer wants a accurate photo or do they want aesthetic pleasing photos?
Most photographers I know and most of my friends never question how genuine is a photo, they only comment on how nice or how well taken it is. I am surprised that some of my friends who don't shoot photos are aware that most of the photos (birds, models etc) have gone thru digital processing when we are willing a photobook on award winning shots.
Yes, this is the point I fully agree with you. I was excited when OMDS announced that the OM1 is going to have computational photography and was disappointed when it was released. Their "computational photography" is not in the same context as those used in mobile phones but on the AI used to lock the focus on birds etc.
I did ask one of my engineer friends who designed chips as his job. He said that camera manufacturers are not able to commit the kind of volume which mobile phone manufacturers are able to, in order to build a chip like the one used in iPHone or Google Pixel. If they do, the cost will be too high for the camera camera as this feature is not desired by professionals who can pay a lot for equipment and lenses. For normal end users, it is better that they just used their photo phone to get the computer corrected photos they desire.
I did ask one of my engineer friends who designed chips as his job. He said that camera manufacturers are not able to commit the kind of volume which mobile phone manufacturers are able to, in order to build a chip like the one used in iPHone or Google Pixel. If they do, the cost will be too high for the camera camera as this feature is not desired by professionals who can pay a lot for equipment and lenses. For normal end users, it is better that they just used their photo phone to get the computer corrected photos they desire.
Some one says a mobile phone manufacturer may have misrepresented how great their phone camera is.
I am a iPhone user for more than 10 years and have been upgrading every now and then.
I do see huge difference in my image quality when I upgraded from iphone X to iPhone12
and huge difference between iPhone 12 and 13.
iPhone 14 may be a little disappointing as apple would find it difficult to make another leap,
after having done it for so many earlier versions. I have not tried it myself. Will wait for one of my
family members to get one in order to take side by side comparison.
There are many times I am guilty using my Olympus EM5 as a point as shoot. But as the image quality
of my iphone improved, I now tend to just whip out my iphone to shoot candid shots instead, they are most
shared on social media anyway and it is much more convenient to sent out from a phone.
Camera Manufacturers have to think out of the box to compete in terms of convenience to woo users again.
Every Mirrorless have a point and shoot mode, but they should put some picture quality improvement in it
when user wants to use it as point and shoot. I am taking of lower end models like the Olympus EM5.
This may not be necessary for OM-1 as users are serious hobbyist or pros who will take time to create the
highest quality images.
Camera Manufactueres should make the camera connection to mobile phones much more stable and reliable.
I am surprised that even my Sony RX10 sucks when it comes to connecting to my phone.
I do see huge difference in my image quality when I upgraded from iphone X to iPhone12
and huge difference between iPhone 12 and 13.
iPhone 14 may be a little disappointing as apple would find it difficult to make another leap,
after having done it for so many earlier versions. I have not tried it myself. Will wait for one of my
family members to get one in order to take side by side comparison.
There are many times I am guilty using my Olympus EM5 as a point as shoot. But as the image quality
of my iphone improved, I now tend to just whip out my iphone to shoot candid shots instead, they are most
shared on social media anyway and it is much more convenient to sent out from a phone.
Camera Manufacturers have to think out of the box to compete in terms of convenience to woo users again.
Every Mirrorless have a point and shoot mode, but they should put some picture quality improvement in it
when user wants to use it as point and shoot. I am taking of lower end models like the Olympus EM5.
This may not be necessary for OM-1 as users are serious hobbyist or pros who will take time to create the
highest quality images.
Camera Manufactueres should make the camera connection to mobile phones much more stable and reliable.
I am surprised that even my Sony RX10 sucks when it comes to connecting to my phone.
Steve Jobs is gone and that ends the story except the board of directors don't understand consumer electronics when Steve told his people that Apple will be a consumer electronics company.
Apple had stolen ideas from Google pixel, GoPro, insta360 and DJI but what they did not do is improve on the ideas and concepts so apple is a sort of rojak me too phone like everybody else. What stands out or unique about that?
To add insult to injury iPhone14 is designed to be unrepairable with tamper proof software in the phone. What is there to protect really? If I were a consultant...but I'll keep my ideas to myself..haha.
Apple had stolen ideas from Google pixel, GoPro, insta360 and DJI but what they did not do is improve on the ideas and concepts so apple is a sort of rojak me too phone like everybody else. What stands out or unique about that?
To add insult to injury iPhone14 is designed to be unrepairable with tamper proof software in the phone. What is there to protect really? If I were a consultant...but I'll keep my ideas to myself..haha.
Last edited:
Smartphone companies and OMDS listen up! This Youtuber has good advice. I bet the next OMDS camera will be a world beater with super slow motion and cinema look plus fun factor, now that's a WOW camera..hehe
Edit: This thread has 37k views so far, not bad for a dead sensor or loser sensor as this Youtuber described..haha applause!!!
Edit: This thread has 37k views so far, not bad for a dead sensor or loser sensor as this Youtuber described..haha applause!!!
Last edited:
Don't chase iso , dynamic range and sharpness. These are the easy things camera companies can do but where is the art or artistry which only you as photographer can give. Beauty is in imperfection not high specifications cameras or lenses. Wink ,wink.
Apple has hit a dead end..after Steve Jobs Demise. Innovate or die.
I've had the new iPhone 14 for 2 weeks. I should've listened to Steve Jobs' daughter because I now regret buying it.
Every year I try to convince myself I won't give in and buy the latest iPhone, but I keep failing and I'm even more annoyed with myself this time.
www.businessinsider.com
Some one mentions a new M43 lens and makes a startling claim about it. I have commented, as follows:
" The lens offers 2:1 magnification. If I am not mistaken, magnification is a lens characteristic. Magnification has nothing to do with sensor size of the camera body that you attach the lens to. Thus it may be misleading to say that this particular lens has 4 x magnification or "400% macro". We expect higher standards of camera /lens description YouTube videos by anyone. Unfortunately this rubbish is repeated by some other reviewers. "
" The lens offers 2:1 magnification. If I am not mistaken, magnification is a lens characteristic. Magnification has nothing to do with sensor size of the camera body that you attach the lens to. Thus it may be misleading to say that this particular lens has 4 x magnification or "400% macro". We expect higher standards of camera /lens description YouTube videos by anyone. Unfortunately this rubbish is repeated by some other reviewers. "
Last edited:
The danger is that:
1) Although he said he once worked for Olympus as an engineer, he really is ignorant about OPTICS. Which is sad because now he disseminates such nonsense on YouTube. No wonder why they scrapped his ambassadorship.
or;
2) He knows it is nonsense but purposely says it. To garner YouTube views (click baiting) so as to earn money. Meaning no ethics and it is all about money. No wonder why they scrapped his ambassadorship.
or;
3) He mentions the MFT lens and makes a ridiculous claim, and then tells in detail why he will NOT buy the MFT lens. That is giving it a lot of negatives. Is it meant to be revenge against Olympus/OMDS?
or;
4) OMDS is probably not amused by this video. Wonder if they may consider action against him.
1) Although he said he once worked for Olympus as an engineer, he really is ignorant about OPTICS. Which is sad because now he disseminates such nonsense on YouTube. No wonder why they scrapped his ambassadorship.
or;
2) He knows it is nonsense but purposely says it. To garner YouTube views (click baiting) so as to earn money. Meaning no ethics and it is all about money. No wonder why they scrapped his ambassadorship.
or;
3) He mentions the MFT lens and makes a ridiculous claim, and then tells in detail why he will NOT buy the MFT lens. That is giving it a lot of negatives. Is it meant to be revenge against Olympus/OMDS?
or;
4) OMDS is probably not amused by this video. Wonder if they may consider action against him.
Erm, I think you have a mix up of facts. Robin Wong worked at Olympus Malaysia as a sales and promotion person. He was a qualified civil engineer before he joined Olympus.
Hello, don‘t anyhow “whack”..4:1 ratio is not Robin says..it’s OM says
OMDS developing OM System M.Zuiko 90mm F3.5 Macro IS
OM Digital Solutions has announced it's developing an 90mm F3.5 IS Macro lens for Micro Four Thirds, to be released in 2023, as part of an expansion of the OM System roadmap.
www.dpreview.com
He buys or not , it’s his choice and the reasons are valid which are real consideration for a non -.pro macro shooter.
Similar threads
