Subject Come vs Camera Go

[Asmarlak]

(My Personal Vision of Future Digital Photography)
(Canon, Nikon, ... vs 4/3 systems)
(Why 4/3 Systems will be Better than Full Frame Format Cameras)
(Simple Guide to Understanding 4/3 System)

When we try to understand new ideas, the first thing we must do is to detach ourselves from the previous ones (in this case, lets forget for a moment about magnifying glasses, telescopes, and microscope technologies. And also about bigger sensors are better, that apply only to the 35mm format) to start with a fresh understanding of the new ones. Not only do we give the new idea the chance that it deserves but also give ourselves a better chance of succeeding in our search for the truth. In addition, we do our part in the long-running history of supporting new ideas and technologies. After we completely understand the new idea we can go back and relate it to the older one and do our comparisons to give us a solid basis for choosing what is best for us.

Current DSLRs are built as an extension to the 35mm format technology while the 4/3 technology was created from scratch, from the ground up exclusively for digital use. Comparing the two would be like comparing apples to oranges, what goes for the 35mm system will go against 4/3 system and visa-versa.

When humans have perfect vision we call it 20/20. Bear in mind that that standard is for humans, most other creatures around us already have vision that exceeds that of humans. The idea of creating sensors or computer chips that are more capable (in our case, seeing 30/20, 40/20,..) has been employed for many years including in computers.

The current 4/3 sensors with crop factor of x2 simply have vision of 40/20 compared to the standard 1:1 full frame sensors which are 20/20 (in camera standards). IT DOES NOT BRING THE SUBJECT CLOSER BY ENLARGING IT, BUT INSTEAD SEE'S IT BETTER BY DIGITALLY CUTTING THE DISTANCE IN HALF BETWEEN THE CAMERA AND THE SUBJECT. Therefore, photos taken by 4/3 system cameras have more details than photos taken by older systems. You don't necessarily see all the details in out-of-camera images because the in-camera image processing engine is constantly being developed and getting better from one model to another to absorb the capabilities of the sensor. However, those details were caught by the sensor and exist in the files (RAW's and JPEG's) and are easily extracted in post-processing.

The logical question is: why has no camera reviewer pointed that out before?. The answer is that reviewers don't post-process their images, they judge by strait-out-of-camera images and not by the potential the image has nor the data it contains. Even the image curve analysis describe what is seen in strait-out-of-camera images and not what lies beneath.

4/3 systems face one common issue that keeps other camera users from exploring them, which is the noise issue, a downside issue that is produced by the very same upside of "seeing better by getting closer". Imagine you have the most expensive and sharpest TV ever; the screen would always have the ideal distance where it is seen sharpest depending on the screen size vs the distance. The closer you get to the screen the more noise you'd see. In our case the sensor see's the subject from a closer distance (notice the title of this thread).
I have all confidence that dealing with the noise issue is a matter of complementing size to distance.

Let's not forget that this is a fairly new technology intended to make cameras and lenses smaller and lighter. Now that we have a system that uses a 300mm lens in order to see an object at 600mm equivalent and with more details captured at the same time. Having a 300mm lens is definitely smaller and lighter than the 600mm. The next generation of sensors could very well have a x4 crop factor (80/20 vision) and use only 150mm lens to see an object at 600mm equivalent.

With that said, it does not mean that the "enlarging" factor does not exist. It does, but it is from using lenses that are based on the "magnifying" technology. The great hope is that as the new sensors keep developing, cameras will eventually become smaller with almost flat lenses that look like boxes such as the older 35mm point and shoot film cameras but with the best possible DSLR capabilities.
The ultimate eventual result is replacing lenses completely with sensors, when zooming in and out will become a sensor function complemented with a simple reflective glass. Even if the camera does not get much smaller because of other components inside it, we'd still not having to deal with big and heavy lenses.
One of the other aspects that could eventually happen is that we will not have RAWs and JPEGs but rather only one kind because things would be captured perfectly, even better that seeing them with the naked eye. Things could get much better, simpler, and cheaper.

What I described above is not new, applying it to photography is. If we look closely at how space satellites, army radars, and even Google mapping take pictures, it is all done digitally without the conventional lenses that we use in photography today. The difference is that those existing applications use huge components. Transferring the same technology to a camera that fits in the palms of our hands take time, effort, and support.

I personally believe that when the 4/3 systems overcome the noise issue, it will skyrocket to the future and eventually all other camera manufacturers will have no choice but to adopt it.