triplefinger
Well-known
I came across the new micro 4/3 announcement.
good glass, small body, no SLR...
sounds like a decent RF alternative, at least from a digital standpoint.
Mike
good glass, small body, no SLR...
sounds like a decent RF alternative, at least from a digital standpoint.
Mike
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I came across this link to an interview with Ogawa Haruo of Olympus in a posting by Gerry Siegel on Photo.net:
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=39818
"DCW: With the M4/3 system it should be possible to use Leica M-mount lenses through a converter. I’m excited about the potential of using those old interchangeable rangefinder types of lenses, but will it be possible?
OGAWA: As an interchangeable-lens camera system, [M4/3] will have the shorgest flange-back distance, so it should be possible. I personally hope that it becomes possible. As a lens-mount standard, some problems may occur in guaranteeing operation, so it may not be possible to support it from the corporate perspective, but I do hope that it comes about."
I get the feeling that standards won't be as rigid as with the original 4/3 model, so that Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or whoever else signs on, will have more freedom to be adventurous in design. I am looking forward to seeing what comes out in the next year or two.
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=39818
"DCW: With the M4/3 system it should be possible to use Leica M-mount lenses through a converter. I’m excited about the potential of using those old interchangeable rangefinder types of lenses, but will it be possible?
OGAWA: As an interchangeable-lens camera system, [M4/3] will have the shorgest flange-back distance, so it should be possible. I personally hope that it becomes possible. As a lens-mount standard, some problems may occur in guaranteeing operation, so it may not be possible to support it from the corporate perspective, but I do hope that it comes about."
I get the feeling that standards won't be as rigid as with the original 4/3 model, so that Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or whoever else signs on, will have more freedom to be adventurous in design. I am looking forward to seeing what comes out in the next year or two.
Ray Nalley
Well-known
The sensor is the same 4/3's as currently exists. The "micro" refers to the camera thickness and lens to sensor difference.
gavinlg
Veteran
You may jump on the anti-4/3rds bandwagon like everyone else, but I can tell for out of experience that the 4/3rds concept is not just marketing speak. No one else makes AF lenses like olympus, and a large portion of the idea to go 4/3rds was so that they could concentrate mainly on the lenses being highly corrected and near perfect technically. I cannot tell the difference between f2.8, f4, f8 on any 4 of my current digital zuikos, because they're so consistently good. They are so good precisely because of the size and dimensions of the sensor.
I've owned a Canon 5d, a 30d, a nikon d300 and now an Olympus e-3 in the last 2-3 years, and the e-3 is by no means an inferior camera to any of them. In many situations (such as journalism), it's actually superior.
The 4/3rds olympus/panasonic sensor delivers extremely accurate colors and beautiful tones and is (despite the internet folklore) actually pretty decent with high ISO.
I think the m4/3rds format is a big step for olympus, and If they utilize it properly it will be extremely popular.
What I look forward to most is:
A "pro" m4/3rds weather-sealed/metal body
At least 4 high performance fast prime lenses - 10.5mm f2, 17.5 f2, 25mm 1.4, 42.5mm f1.4
It's a stretch but it IS possible. It would be like a digital PEN.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
Gavin, I too would like to see some really nice primes come about with the micro 4/3 system.
I currently shoot an L1 and an Olympus E-1 and thoroughly enjoy both cameras, espcially the L1. So, I can't wait to see what this new system holds in store for us.
I currently shoot an L1 and an Olympus E-1 and thoroughly enjoy both cameras, espcially the L1. So, I can't wait to see what this new system holds in store for us.
Last edited:
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
The E-410's sensor makes decent pictures provided you underexpose -0.3 to -1.0. With the 25mm pancake it's already quite a small package. Let's wait and see.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Gavin, you (and a few others here on RFF) and I have used the system. We get it.
That's why we sometimes stare in disbelief when people who avoided the system in the first place mention "reasons" of why they did. Most of these reasons are from reading, not first hand experience, but ... what can we say? Olympus ain't Leica
Now, if there is one thing about this new M4/3rd system, I sure hope that Olympus will get off its infatuation with zoom lenses. Yes, their zooms are second to none optically, but they are bulky and expensive.
Wide-fast-prime lenses are definitely possible in the 4/3rd system. And they are more sexy, cool, and darn useful.
Put a 17mm f1.7 lens on one of those new M4/3rd camera and you'll basically get the digital version of the Olympus 35 SP
That's why we sometimes stare in disbelief when people who avoided the system in the first place mention "reasons" of why they did. Most of these reasons are from reading, not first hand experience, but ... what can we say? Olympus ain't Leica
Now, if there is one thing about this new M4/3rd system, I sure hope that Olympus will get off its infatuation with zoom lenses. Yes, their zooms are second to none optically, but they are bulky and expensive.
Wide-fast-prime lenses are definitely possible in the 4/3rd system. And they are more sexy, cool, and darn useful.
Put a 17mm f1.7 lens on one of those new M4/3rd camera and you'll basically get the digital version of the Olympus 35 SP
kuzano
Veteran
I'm definitely on board...
I'm definitely on board...
Those who naysay 4/3rds most often have jumped to conclusions based on knee-jerk, often uninformed or bad
information.
My two 4/3d's experiences, the e300 and the e510 have left me wondering why anyone (other than professionals) is packing around the weight and paying the price for any of the other crop sensor cameras. And the e3 is exceeding many other crop sensor CaNikons, and hot on the tail of the FF camera's.
Prime Lenses with large apertures are not a problem. The 4/3rds line adaptors for legacy lenses allow the use of thread mount, Olympus OM, Pentax, Nikon, Minolta, Leica R, Contax, Minolta and others. Cameraquest carriies all the above lens to 4/3rds adaptors. I have no doubt that a strong lens manufacturer like Olympus will fill out the demand for primes, but that is currently a non issue. I use my Zuiko 50 1.4 and my 28 2.8 now. Yes I realize they are twice the focal length, but in that list I mentioned above there are plenty of wide primes.
Apparently many of the naysayers truly have no idea about the 4/3rds lens lineup from Oly, Panasonic (the Leica lens) and the aftermarket, added to the legacy market.
Oly is already talking about the lens adaptors that may come to market for other mfrs, plus an adaptor at inception for the current 4/3rds lens, and a set of lenses dedicated to the Micro system.
I am excited about the Micro 4/3rds. It will file a niche that has been a void for a long time.
As far as the post from the person who said nothing but marketing hype and no real substance. How totally backward is that comment.
Olympus's biggest failing has been in really marketing the system and in being unwilling to put a professional tag on the product.
I see the Micro system as my next move after the e510... well except for the low shutter count E1 I am looking to buy next week.
And for the rangefinder lookalike crowd.... hey.. it appears as if it's going to fit that bill also... no prism and no mirror box.
I'm definitely on board...
Those who naysay 4/3rds most often have jumped to conclusions based on knee-jerk, often uninformed or bad
information.
My two 4/3d's experiences, the e300 and the e510 have left me wondering why anyone (other than professionals) is packing around the weight and paying the price for any of the other crop sensor cameras. And the e3 is exceeding many other crop sensor CaNikons, and hot on the tail of the FF camera's.
Prime Lenses with large apertures are not a problem. The 4/3rds line adaptors for legacy lenses allow the use of thread mount, Olympus OM, Pentax, Nikon, Minolta, Leica R, Contax, Minolta and others. Cameraquest carriies all the above lens to 4/3rds adaptors. I have no doubt that a strong lens manufacturer like Olympus will fill out the demand for primes, but that is currently a non issue. I use my Zuiko 50 1.4 and my 28 2.8 now. Yes I realize they are twice the focal length, but in that list I mentioned above there are plenty of wide primes.
Apparently many of the naysayers truly have no idea about the 4/3rds lens lineup from Oly, Panasonic (the Leica lens) and the aftermarket, added to the legacy market.
Oly is already talking about the lens adaptors that may come to market for other mfrs, plus an adaptor at inception for the current 4/3rds lens, and a set of lenses dedicated to the Micro system.
I am excited about the Micro 4/3rds. It will file a niche that has been a void for a long time.
As far as the post from the person who said nothing but marketing hype and no real substance. How totally backward is that comment.
Olympus's biggest failing has been in really marketing the system and in being unwilling to put a professional tag on the product.
I see the Micro system as my next move after the e510... well except for the low shutter count E1 I am looking to buy next week.
And for the rangefinder lookalike crowd.... hey.. it appears as if it's going to fit that bill also... no prism and no mirror box.
Last edited:
40oz
...
excuse me, but since when is it a "bandwagon" when someone is less enthused about something than you are? Can't I just state why I am not all excited about something?
I already have cameras and lenses. I don't need digital anything, and that isn't bashing. It's stating a fact that applies to myself and nobody else. If I wanted a digital rangefinder, I'd probably just get an R-D1 and call it a day. I mean, those actually exist and accept common lenses. Unlike this fantasy "micro four/thirds M super-system" that has yet to materialize, even in a press realease.
fortynine
Member
I was wondering what would be the picture-taking experience using the expected EVF of the micro 4/3 digital RF. Any thoughts on that ? When using liveview, I find the "intimacy" of picture-taking missing. Wonder would EVF be the same?
Ray Nalley
Well-known
Well, the "standard" specs I've seen published doesn't use a VF at all, just a live view LCD on the back. Adding an EVF shouldn't be too hard, though. But I don't like EVF's at all.
jbf
||||||
Who is to say that you cannot have an optical viewfinder in one of these? I bet for sure you could have an optical vf with an EVF overlay of some sort. not to mention at least a hot shoe viewfinder equivalent
40oz
...
With all due respect, there is a reason digital systems are designed around the 35mm still 24x36mm format - it has stood the test of time. And according to Olympus, the "Four Thirds mount" sensor size is 17.3mm x 13mm. Pretty much the same size as 110, give or take a few hairs.
I ask - How else can one view new technology except in reference to the past? You say "stuck in the past," I say, "learn from the past." The reason Nikon has gone full-frame is because the market dictated it, not the nebulous "past."
Physics says that there is a limit to how small an aperture can be without impacting sharpness. It also dictates the minimum size of pixels in a sensor, regardless of the resolving power of a lens. You can't just continue to shrink things designed to gather and capture light without regard to how light behaves. 35mm film has struck a balance between size and quality. Arbitrarily deciding to make things smaller won't change that. You still are at the mercy of physics. Digital sensors won't change the ability of lenses to resolve details. Lens technology won't change the ability of sensors to capture light.
Besides the issue of physics and light, there is the issue of enlargement. Since most images are viewed at the same size - 4x6 in drugstore prints, or 8x10 or larger in wall hangings, the sensor/film frame is critical in the quality of the final image. A smaller format requires more enlargement. We all know that 35mm film suffers in comparison to medium format when it comes to common print sizes, so why should we forget that when it comes to digital captures?
Since a 4/3's image is roughly half the size of what is called "full-frame," it requires many times the enlargement for a given size. For example, enlarging a 24x36mm frame to 8x10 is enlarging by a factor of 8. Four thirds images need to be enlarged 16 times. The equivalent of enlarging full-frame to 16x20. What is going to look sharper - an 8x10, or an 8x10 crop from a 16x20 of the same shot?
If Olympus could really deliver an image so sharp in the capture file that it is still comparable to full-frame even at twice the enlargement, why don't they use that technology to create the sharpest full-frame cameras the world could ever hope to see? The fact is, they use the same tech in their four thirds sensor as everyone else uses, and as such, they deliver half the frame. A good step up from the average P&S, but not really competitive to current offerings from anyone else except in terms of cost alone.
You are never going to see a quality difference on an internet forum or in your email, as any image that will fit on your screen or be small enough to be emailed will be so down-sampled it loses any relevance to the original capture. Hell, if you take a low-res shot with the four-thirds and down-sample a full-frame shot, the low-res shot could well look better on the internet. So for sharing images electronically, the four thirds is as good as any and perhaps better than many. But for what so many people refer to as "gallery prints," there is a clear deficiency.
This isn't about who's better. It's about where to spend your time and money, IMHO. I guess it comes down to "horses for courses." If your demands and resources fit the four thirds ability to provide, then go for it by all means. But if you expect a system that competes with your film rangefinder or even other digital RF's, I honestly think you stand to feel burned in the coming years.
It's not about fear of technology or being stuck in the past. ***I build/fix servers for a living.*** Modern technology puts beer in my fridge and food on my table (not necessarily in that order, of course ) I'm not in the market for a digital system. But my co-worker Max and I have been discussing the four thirds system for months now. The micro-four thirds system is a welcome innovation, but certainly not the culmination of the technology.
I ask - How else can one view new technology except in reference to the past? You say "stuck in the past," I say, "learn from the past." The reason Nikon has gone full-frame is because the market dictated it, not the nebulous "past."
Physics says that there is a limit to how small an aperture can be without impacting sharpness. It also dictates the minimum size of pixels in a sensor, regardless of the resolving power of a lens. You can't just continue to shrink things designed to gather and capture light without regard to how light behaves. 35mm film has struck a balance between size and quality. Arbitrarily deciding to make things smaller won't change that. You still are at the mercy of physics. Digital sensors won't change the ability of lenses to resolve details. Lens technology won't change the ability of sensors to capture light.
Besides the issue of physics and light, there is the issue of enlargement. Since most images are viewed at the same size - 4x6 in drugstore prints, or 8x10 or larger in wall hangings, the sensor/film frame is critical in the quality of the final image. A smaller format requires more enlargement. We all know that 35mm film suffers in comparison to medium format when it comes to common print sizes, so why should we forget that when it comes to digital captures?
Since a 4/3's image is roughly half the size of what is called "full-frame," it requires many times the enlargement for a given size. For example, enlarging a 24x36mm frame to 8x10 is enlarging by a factor of 8. Four thirds images need to be enlarged 16 times. The equivalent of enlarging full-frame to 16x20. What is going to look sharper - an 8x10, or an 8x10 crop from a 16x20 of the same shot?
If Olympus could really deliver an image so sharp in the capture file that it is still comparable to full-frame even at twice the enlargement, why don't they use that technology to create the sharpest full-frame cameras the world could ever hope to see? The fact is, they use the same tech in their four thirds sensor as everyone else uses, and as such, they deliver half the frame. A good step up from the average P&S, but not really competitive to current offerings from anyone else except in terms of cost alone.
You are never going to see a quality difference on an internet forum or in your email, as any image that will fit on your screen or be small enough to be emailed will be so down-sampled it loses any relevance to the original capture. Hell, if you take a low-res shot with the four-thirds and down-sample a full-frame shot, the low-res shot could well look better on the internet. So for sharing images electronically, the four thirds is as good as any and perhaps better than many. But for what so many people refer to as "gallery prints," there is a clear deficiency.
This isn't about who's better. It's about where to spend your time and money, IMHO. I guess it comes down to "horses for courses." If your demands and resources fit the four thirds ability to provide, then go for it by all means. But if you expect a system that competes with your film rangefinder or even other digital RF's, I honestly think you stand to feel burned in the coming years.
It's not about fear of technology or being stuck in the past. ***I build/fix servers for a living.*** Modern technology puts beer in my fridge and food on my table (not necessarily in that order, of course
) I'm not in the market for a digital system. But my co-worker Max and I have been discussing the four thirds system for months now. The micro-four thirds system is a welcome innovation, but certainly not the culmination of the technology.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Let me get this out of the way up front - I enjoy discussing this, but do not intend to offend anyone or come across as argumentative. I feel that discussion is a good way to learn, and to clarify one's own thinking. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, and I hope nobody takes my lack of excitement as a personal slight.
My co-worker has an olympus with the 4/3's sensor. The sensor is smaller than "full-frame." In fact, it is the same size as 110 cartridge film. Anyone remember 110 SLR's? While I can still buy 110 film at my local drugstore, the format didn't really survive even in cheapo P&S cameras.
My co-worker just received an adapter to mount Olympus SLR lenses to his body. He has nothing but raves for the handling of his manual focus Zuiko 50mm. He has many times expressed dissatisfaction with manual focusing on the 4/3's zooms, so this adapter is gold to him.
He replaced his original Evolt for a newer model with LiveView because manual focusing through the finder in less than ideal lighting was close to impossible. It was to the point he has been convinced manual focus is nigh impossible except for a select few humans, or his eyesight is abnormally impaired. We actually had an argument because he refused to believe I could manually focus a camera!?!
So, given his issues with a camera system that he otherwise has bought into hook, line, and sinker, I am less than excited about the whole 4/3's promise.
In addition, I don't see anything in the press releases mentioning M mounts or rangefinder lens compatibility. The possibility exists that an adapter may one day be available, whether from Olympus, Leica, Panasonic, or whoever. That would be great for anyone who buys into the micro-four/thirds system. But until it actually exists, I fail to see why anyone should act as if it was already in their hand. There is not even any official plans to do such a thing as yet, despite as much hype as possible for the as-yet unreleased system.
Given the history of 110 film, I find it highly unlikely that a digital 110 format such as Four/Thirds will somehow outlast APS-C designs. All the benefits of elminating the mirror will apply to a body no matter what sensor it uses.
The Four/Thirds sensor might be good, but so is every other sensor out there. There is no inherent advantage with that sensor, yet the small size is an inherent DISadvantage. Any argument suggesting that the reduced sensor size is somehow a quality benefit is marketing, not reality. No matter how good the lenses are, the images will be enlarged far enough to negate any technical triumph they represent. As long as the sensor is based on existing technology and not some alien tech from Roswell, it will suffer from having to be enlarged more than APS-C images.
Given that the depth of a modern SLR is the smallest dimension, I see no reason to expect a micro Four/Thirds body to shrink much. I'm just not buying this whole "super compact DSLR" concept until I actually see and hold one. The concepts are intriguing, but that's been the story of digital cameras since day one. As a very young technology, I honestly think it's too soon to mortgage the house and sell the kids thinking this thing will save the world, to use a bit of hyperbole.
As for me, I'd buy a much-used RD1 before this, if I was in the market for a digital RF. That body at least lets me use readily available lenses going back almost 100 years. And it's a known factor, warts and all.
But the people that buy ia micro-Four/Thirds and enjoy it will benefit to the extent they desire. And I hope they derive much satisfaction.
Again, I'm not a hater. My co-worker and I have discussed the 4/3's systems ad nauseum, so I have had plenty of time to think upon it. I'm not spouting knee-jerk digital-hating invective. Please forgive me if I have sinned
First of all apologies if I came off hostile.
With the 4/3rds system you have to realise that the sensor IS full frame, because the lenses have been designed for it. Hence each lens performs as it was designed, at the focal length it was designed to be. One of the biggest advantages of the 4/3rds sensor is that it allows light projected by the lenses to hit the sensor at a nearly completely perpendicular angle which means that corner sharpness is as high as the center of the frame, and the image quality is consistent over the whole frame. At current with the EOS mount or the Nikon F mount and 35mm size sensors, this sort of uniform image quality isn't possible as the light projected by the lenses hits the edges of the sensor at a more acute angle, meaning that the sensor with its little "light wells" which is dead flat, can't completely pick up all the light that it should.
The outcome of the advantages of the 4/3rds sensor and it's lens advantages means that no matter which of the lenses I'm using, they're not only out-resolving the 10mp sensor on my E-3, but they're near technically perfect in terms of image quality. The center of the frame with my 12-60 swd is not much if any sharper than the very edges. The same can not be said with canon or nikon full frame lenses.
As for manual focussing, you haven't used an e-3 obviously. The finder in the e-3 is bigger than both the nikon d300 and the canon 40d, and the pentax k20d. It's also a decent bit brighter. I have no problems manually focussing with the 12-60 swd kit lens.
In a recent interview somewhere on the web with an olympus designer, the idea of adapting M mount lenses came up and he stated that while it hasn't been completely proven as of yet, there is no reason why it shouldn't work, and also that he hopes to make it happen.
It terms of size, from the sketch ups of the m4/3rds on the 4/3rds site, the cameras are at least half the size of the current e-420. There are mock up line drawings of the size of the cameras on there.
Simon from DPREVIEW has actually mentioned a few times that the contrast detect autofocus is MUCH faster and more efficient than anything we've seen before which leads me to believe he's seen some working prototypes. Also another fellow emailed the editor of one of the sites like "imaging resource", who replied back that he was currently signed to and NDA (silence agreement) but from what he'd seen, the new m4/3rd cameras looked "sexy".
I'd say either olympus or panasonic or both already have some working prototypes going around.
You have to realize that it's difficult to quantify 4/3rds strengths and reasons to use it until you've actually tried it yourself. When in use with my e-3 and literally any olympus lens, everything just comes together really well. I can count on that each file will be sharp, contrasty, with the right colors, the right tonality, the right skin tones. Things like the blue color of the sky really shine on my e-3, whereas my canon and nikon DSLRs before it struggled to get the blue in the right shade. I'm happy shooting the e-3 up to 1600iso and knowing I will be able to get a decent print out of it, but most of the time I only actually need to shoot at 1250 ISO because of the in body IS, which works with every lens including the fast primes available.
I think the main strength of the system is still the lenses, which to my eye have no rivals. I'm still waiting on some fast high quality primes, but for the first time I'm actually enjoying using zooms with the zuikos.
gavinlg
Veteran
Check out a shot with my E-3 on the first day I had it.... ISO 1000 straight out of camera. As you can see if exposed correctly high iso noise is not an issue. Imagine that sort of image quality in a hexar AF sized digital with some fast primes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7524189@N02/2644534013/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7524189@N02/2644534013/sizes/o/
Guys,
here we are trying to seriously discuss cameras that have not even been introduced, and with ZERO real world feedback from their users.
I mean, how useful can this discussion be with such a lack of data?
Anyone want to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Stephen
here we are trying to seriously discuss cameras that have not even been introduced, and with ZERO real world feedback from their users.
I mean, how useful can this discussion be with such a lack of data?
Anyone want to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Stephen
Ray Nalley
Well-known
FOVEON. Sigma has simply made every other sensor obsolete. Well, so they say.
If an advantage of the 4/3's system is the lenses designed for it, where would be the advantage of adapting M mount lenses to it. Wouldn't that create the very problem you say the 4/3's specific lenses were designed to eliminate? Putting lenses designed for 35mm format on a 4/3's body?
This whole micro 4/3's speculation is over the top.
If an advantage of the 4/3's system is the lenses designed for it, where would be the advantage of adapting M mount lenses to it. Wouldn't that create the very problem you say the 4/3's specific lenses were designed to eliminate? Putting lenses designed for 35mm format on a 4/3's body?
This whole micro 4/3's speculation is over the top.
jbf
||||||
While true to the extent of how a lens behaves, this does still not mean that it will have anywhere near the resolving power of a full frame digital SLR.
Think about it this way. Even the highest quality point and shoot cameras with their smaller sensors lack the image quality of a full frame SLR. Yes, optics are nowhere near as good, but that is a moot point.
Just because you have the sharpest lens in the world on a camera of a smaller (less than 35mm or medium format) digital sensor, means nothing in comparison to a camera with a larger sensor.
Basically the entire argument that the other poster was making, is that it's the same with digital sensors (at least in general) as it is with the film world.
You can only squeeze so much light information (digital or analog) into a small sensor/film. As the film/sensor become larger, you begin to allow for far greater ammounts of information to be stored/captured by the light sensitive film/sensor.
In any case, you cant expect a 35mm frame to be able to capture as much details as a medium format frame to that of a large format frame/negative/etc.
It's physics (unfortunately).
40oz
...
While I agree with our esteemed head bartender, one *can* seriously discuss thoeretical possibilities. Are we talking a standard pushpin, or the fat end of a stick pin? fdigital, I didn't think anyone was being hostile, I just wanted to be sure I wasn't coming across as rude.
I appreciate your comments. I agree that the four thirds sensor using proprietary lenses IS full-frame. But so is 110 film. And APS. And pretty much every P&S digicam. That doesn't change the magnification factor or other issues. But showing 10 million pixels at 8x10 (or something similar, cropped to fit) renders the enlargement issue moot. Thank you for pointing that out.
The fact that the lenses are designed for the sensor size is a good point. Without really knowing the math behind it, it seems that the smaller the lens diameter, the easier it is to correct for abberations. Being able to size the lens and sensor together allows one to size things to accomodate vignetting from sensor design issues. I guess the fact remains that a smaller sensor requires a higher resolution lens to render the same level of detail. The fact that the sensor is smaller allows for lower cost for a similar pixel count - more complete sensors per silicon wafer. So as long as production costs are related to silicon area rather than per pixel, the smaller sensor with more pixels will win in a cost-benefit analysis. Enlargement issues re the 110 film problem are elminated.
But I can't help thinking there is a trade-off. Since the aperture number is a function of aperture size per focal length, don't you have an issue with aperture range? If you see image degradation at f/22 on a "full-frame" lens, wouldn't you have those same issues at f/16 on four thirds, without gaining the benefit of wider possible apertures? I don't know, but I kind of doubt an f/0.5 lens is somehow more possible on four thirds than it is on 35mm.
And wouldn't you re-introduce vignetting and other digital sensor issues present on current DSLR's when Olympus introduces the micro-four thirds system? At that point aren't they just scaling down the current design systems without gaining anything but cost savings?
And since the sensor is half the size of a 35mm frame in the vertical and horizontal dimensions, doesn't that mean that the lens has to have twice the resolution of current lenses to be able to capture the same level of detail? If you look at another thread here, regarding the Zeiss/Cosina collaboration (Zeiss Ikon ZM sub-forum), you see individual stray hairs on a model in a scene that is much larger than your head shot. Is current lens technology such that the level of lens resolution can be tailored upon demand? I'm asking, it's not rhetorical. I'm not arguing that resolution is the sum total of quality, just that to give that up is to give up a variable that you don't *have* to sacrifice. You might have a billion pixels, but if your lens can only paint with a relatively broad stroke, what have you accomplished? I'm not doubting Olympus lens designers, I'm just asking if they run into a limit of resolving power.
After all this, I'm going to start sketching angels on pins. It's easier on the mind
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
fdigital, I didn't think anyone was being hostile, I just wanted to be sure I wasn't coming across as rude.
I appreciate your comments. I agree that the four thirds sensor using proprietary lenses IS full-frame. But so is 110 film. And APS. And pretty much every P&S digicam. That doesn't change the magnification factor or other issues. But showing 10 million pixels at 8x10 (or something similar, cropped to fit) renders the enlargement issue moot. Thank you for pointing that out.
The fact that the lenses are designed for the sensor size is a good point. Without really knowing the math behind it, it seems that the smaller the lens diameter, the easier it is to correct for abberations. Being able to size the lens and sensor together allows one to size things to accomodate vignetting from sensor design issues. I guess the fact remains that a smaller sensor requires a higher resolution lens to render the same level of detail. The fact that the sensor is smaller allows for lower cost for a similar pixel count - more complete sensors per silicon wafer. So as long as production costs are related to silicon area rather than per pixel, the smaller sensor with more pixels will win in a cost-benefit analysis. Enlargement issues re the 110 film problem are elminated.
But I can't help thinking there is a trade-off. Since the aperture number is a function of aperture size per focal length, don't you have an issue with aperture range? If you see image degradation at f/22 on a "full-frame" lens, wouldn't you have those same issues at f/16 on four thirds, without gaining the benefit of wider possible apertures? I don't know, but I kind of doubt an f/0.5 lens is somehow more possible on four thirds than it is on 35mm.
And wouldn't you re-introduce vignetting and other digital sensor issues present on current DSLR's when Olympus introduces the micro-four thirds system? At that point aren't they just scaling down the current design systems without gaining anything but cost savings?
And since the sensor is half the size of a 35mm frame in the vertical and horizontal dimensions, doesn't that mean that the lens has to have twice the resolution of current lenses to be able to capture the same level of detail? If you look at another thread here, regarding the Zeiss/Cosina collaboration (Zeiss Ikon ZM sub-forum), you see individual stray hairs on a model in a scene that is much larger than your head shot. Is current lens technology such that the level of lens resolution can be tailored upon demand? I'm asking, it's not rhetorical. I'm not arguing that resolution is the sum total of quality, just that to give that up is to give up a variable that you don't *have* to sacrifice. You might have a billion pixels, but if your lens can only paint with a relatively broad stroke, what have you accomplished? I'm not doubting Olympus lens designers, I'm just asking if they run into a limit of resolving power.
After all this, I'm going to start sketching angels on pins. It's easier on the mind
All your points make sense, and the resolution of zeiss lenses on the d700 a dcwatch.co.jp are very impressive. I had a 50 1.4 planar on a d300 and while it was extremely impressive above around f2.8, f1.4 was poorly soft and flarey by comparison. The d300 struggled really badly with skin tones - every-time I attempted portrait style pics with the d300 I was disappointed with the amount of PP work I had to do to get satisfactory skin tones. The zeiss was impressive but it didn't matter because the camera produced weird colors under a lot of situations. The d700 looks to be better in that respect but my point is as an all round system 4/3rds works really well. It can't always be quantified by theoretical explanations.
A full frame cameras diffraction sets in at around f11-f16. A four thirds cameras diffraction sets in around f8, although to be honest I don't start to notice until about f13 or so. The kicker of that is that f8 on a four thirds DSLR has the same depth of field as a full frame nikon/canon at f16, so it makes no difference in the real world, apart from the zuiko lenses still being in their sweet spot at that point.
It does suck a little bit having less potential DOF with 4/3rd cameras but once you get into fast lenses it's not really noticeable, and in some areas it's actually desirable, such as photojournalism, where you really may want to get more in focus in a low light situation. Take the 14-35mm f2 zoom or the 35-100 f2 telephoto. They have similar DOF to a canon/nikon f2.8 but are faster and are probably better quality. In the same positive light, having 2-3 stops effective IS on a leica summilux 25mm 1.4 is incredible.
Like I said at the start, everything you said makes sense to my mind but in actually using my E-3 real world, I don't notice it as being worse to a d300 or a 5d, just different. The only thing I miss is having some fast primes, but that is simply because olympus don't really have any in the focal lengths I like. I however have talked to a few reps at trade shows and they seem to thing that fast primes are in the pipeline due to high demand.
You really have to look at it's advantages as a system.