Another interesting/controversial thread

Interesting ...

my biggest issue with 4/3s systems are number one the lens length multiplier... the limited (and expensive) lens selection (although this year will have a ton of lenses released for this system)

number two ... the viewfinders almost all of them have incredibly small viewfinders

Good things about the 4/3rds cameras (so far)

great image quality in lower iso levels and very quiet shutters (the E500 is quite amazingly quiet)

that being said

I think 35mm will survive for quite a long time... or at least until the cost vs. profit levels for producing film become a burden on the companies; but I don't see that happening anytime soon

Edit:

Change my term because the 4/3rds sensor is a full frame sensor... just a smaller frame
 
Last edited:
It's a very old posting from September 2005.
Would these points still be valid?
 

I think Erwin Puts article had claimed something right, The problem of prevent it from 100% right is can Olympus make such a professional lens?

As the dilemma in smaller sensor, It will bring out more detail in a chip smaller that 3/4 system if it has a right lens, but the right lens for small sensor maybe cost a lot more than expected, and the solution is bigger sensor therefore the lens is not that difficult to make.
 
Olympus has some pretty cool looking 4/3 lenses. If I remember correctly; a 150/2, some fast medium telephoto zoom at f2. No IS/VR/OS or HSM/USM. I don't think they are cheap though.

To me 4/3 works as long as ISO noise isn't a disadvantage, and the comparable set of lenses is not only smaller, but cheaper.

If they had some pancake lenses like Pentax, those Pirro-mirrored bodies might be interesting.

Mark
 
I suspect success in the market place is more a function of marketing than technical excellence. Can Olympus persuade (pay?) enough pros to switch to a pro level E series camera, even if it is very good? Is this enough for the 4/3 concept to gain further credibility?
 
greentea: Can Olympus make professional lenses? Well ... yeah, they've been doing it for ages.
 
At this point in time, small crowded sensors have more thermal noise than larger, less crowded sensors.

Right now 4/3 cameras will have inferior high ISO (>400) performance. Otherwise, the 4/3 system would be my first choice fir a digital camera.
 
OK guys a question: How is the Leica/ Panasonic preformance compaired to other players in the field?

Just curious- also does the Leica suffer from the same long delay between depressing the shutter button and when the camera actually takes the shot? (as was the case with the Digilux 2) A friend of mine less versed in photography is considering a camera beyond the P&S but smaller and lighter then a DSLR.
 
The Digilux2 is prettyfast if you use it as intended: manually. The delay is caused by the rather basic AF system.
 
Interesting. There is a intesting, well executed test image in Fritz Polking's book "Naturfotografie in der Praxis" on page 24-25. He prints a full size-full resolution comparison of a 6.3, 8.2, 12.8 and 16.7 camera when discussing the resolution needed for high-quality book prints. For that one needs more IQ than for prints for viewing. He uses a 2.8/100 macro lens for the test.(Apo-Telyt? he does not say)
Of these camera's only the 1DsII (16.7) has a 35 mm sensor, the others are smaller. Guess what? the best result is with the 12.8 followed extremely closely by the 8.2. The 16.7 comes third in the center but loses out to even the 6.3 in the corners. Now this is of course not something one would see with "normal" prints, but it does give food for thought. And he does take most of his award-winning photo's with the 1DsII nevertheless...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom