Ray Nalley
Well-known
Well, a lot of folks are talking about being able to use their existing lenses on it. I'm not sure buying a completely new system with new lenses is what they have in mind.
srtiwari
Daktari
I love and continue to use film , AND will keep on doing so if I can. But, like many others, I also wanted a serious Digital shooter. I could not quite get myself to buy the RD1 or the M8, and so was contemplating a digital camera/system in parallel without giving up film. If the Micro Four-thirds turns out be be really good, it may be a better choice than going to a DSLR.
Thats why I am excited about this, as a possibility.
Thats why I am excited about this, as a possibility.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
I do not understand your point Roger - why would focusing have to be live view? If a new lens was designed for the mount it would likely support whatever autofocus system the camera had. Or did you mean a 21/1.4 in M mount adapted to micro Four Thirds?
That would be an odd way of going about it but even live view focusing is not all bad. One of the potentaly benefits of an EVF is its ability to display whatever the sensor sees. A small patch, much like the focusing patch on rangefinder but with a cropped and magnified section of the image would allow you to focus with very high accuracy. Panasonic already employs the system on its digital cameras as an aid for manual focus so it is likely that it will find its way onto a micro four thirds body.
As for the lenses - Sigma has a 24/1.8 and Panasonic has a 25/1.4 in 4/3rds mount. The former costs around $400 while the latter is about twice as much. Both are roughly around the price of a 4/3rds body. The former also covers the 35mm image circle. The hope is that these lenses can be made significantly smaller now. I do not see why this should suddenly increase the price. Indeed they ought to be able to use simpler designs and make them considerably cheaper.
That said, it makes plenty of sense to buy lenses that cost more than the body - indeed I imagine a rather large number of people here use Leica M lenses on Bessas. Every digital SLR manufacturer currently follows this model as well and it seems to work all right for them.
Cheers,
-Gautham
sepiareverb
genius and moron
What about depth of field? The problem with my D-Lux 3 is that one can't shoot with shallow depth of field with such short lenses. We'd need a 14/.095 lens to get close to a 28/2.8 right?
Precisely. About nil.
I must be missing something in all this discussion about a focal length "multiple". If the sensor is smaller, and since this is a NEW system altogether, why can't lenses be manufactured so that they would be small enough to NOT require the "21mm F1.4" kind of (apparently difficult) design ? I would have thought smaller lenses would only add to the attractiveness of this whole system.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Subhash
Again, depth of field. Wide is certainly possible, but what use would a 11/2.8 lens be? You'd have near endless depth of field wide open, leading to boring images as everything would always be in focus. Smaller brings with it a sameness of look that I'd tire of pretty quick- even for snapshots.
srtiwari
Daktari
I am sorry, but again. Why can't there be the same DOF as the larger systems, if one is , in fact shrinking everything ? Is there something magical about the current systems which makes it the only size where we can have the DOFs that we now have ? I would have thought that nothing would change if the ratios remain the same. After all, we have had smaller RFs that had the DOFs that we want.
sol33
Established
The problem is that you can only shrink the camera, but not the real world. The scale between the camera sensor and a person (for example) does not stay the same. Hence the different depth of field.
There are millions of web pages on the topic. Google is your friend.
Ray Nalley
Well-known
DOF is inversely proportional to format size. You just can't get around it.
Wiyum
Established
No, you'd need a 14mm/1.4. The crop factor works on depth of field the same way it does on angle of view. A 50mm 1.4 would be a 25mm 0.7 in the new format. It isn't ideal, but Olympus has certainly done some impressive things with the old standard (have you seen their 14-35 2.0 lens? Impressive optics to be sure). I expect that if the new format really allows for lenses of the same focal length and max aperture at half the size, then there will be plenty of options that offer acceptable depth of field. It'll never be the same, but that's one of the trade-offs with a lower cost system.
I fully expect Leica to be Panasonic's partner in this, but further, I think that if they're smart, they'll jump in with both feet. Every lensmaker in the world seems to have one cash cow or another, and the truly successful companies have lower-cost bodies and lenses galore. If Leica developed a high quality body with Panasonic and a full complement of quality optics, the thing'd sell a ton. More people want "a Leica" than can afford one, and that exculsivity isn't helping them out financially. A thoroughly top-notch Leica body with lenses could offer something to such consumers and inject more revenue into Leica, allowing them to take the risks they need to take in order to get the M-Digital truly off the ground. And I'm not talking about budget-class product here. A $1500 body and $400-$800 primes would sell like mad to a class of consumer that's willing to spend the same or more on Canon and Nikon, but would rather have a Leica, but cannot afford $1500 a lens. The market exists for Leica, and as far as I'm concerned, they stand to gain more than Panasonic or Olympus if they want to.
I say: Digilux 4 (or a new name) with a new set of small 12mm/2.8, 18mm/2.0, 25mm/1.4, 35mm/1.4 could do some great business. Leica needs a product that sells in volume; this could be it.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
A digital Bessa would be nice, but I don't think either it's ever gonna happen either.
Most guys here miss the point: companies do not build cameras to fit existing user's needs, but to constantly unclose NEW markets. Things being NEW is the only way to keep buyers coming.
Only people like mr. Kobayashi and the unnamed Epson executive that instigated the R-D1s and companies like Leica have the photographer in mind. All others think from the stockholders' perspective!
Most guys here miss the point: companies do not build cameras to fit existing user's needs, but to constantly unclose NEW markets. Things being NEW is the only way to keep buyers coming.
Only people like mr. Kobayashi and the unnamed Epson executive that instigated the R-D1s and companies like Leica have the photographer in mind. All others think from the stockholders' perspective!
Ray Nalley
Well-known
There is always the danger, though, that when everybody can afford a Leica, nobody will want a Leica. Cheapening the name will destroy the exclusivity that makes so many people want one (that they can't afford). Glad I'm not trying to figure out marketing for Leica.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
another P&S
another P&S
Website dpreview.com quotes the Press statement, which states that the Micro FourThirds system will aim for a smaller than 'Regular' FourThirds sensor.
So, it'll be useless for RF photography, with the use of an adapter all your longer-than-35mm lenses would turn to tele lenses, shallow DOF would become completely impossible,
you'd have a manual P&S with Leica glass on it, what a waste.
This lens mount will result in a Live View, P&S system with exchangable lenses. Just to accomodate those Olympus DSLR users that sometimes consider their DSLR too bulky.
I honestly can't see any good come from it. Our best bet is finding someone personally interested in RF photography at the controls of a big company to invest in a digital RF with MF lenses.
Maybe Cosina will take to manufacturing the Panny / Olympus bodies, and Mr. Kobayashi will personally decide to pull another rabbit out of the digital-RF hat.
A digital Bessa with full frame sensor and 1:1 finder would be nice. I'd opt for the fold-away LCD screen and the cocking lever of the R-D1s as well, just to sustain the sensation of true photography.
Please PM me for my receiving address
another P&S
Website dpreview.com quotes the Press statement, which states that the Micro FourThirds system will aim for a smaller than 'Regular' FourThirds sensor.
So, it'll be useless for RF photography, with the use of an adapter all your longer-than-35mm lenses would turn to tele lenses, shallow DOF would become completely impossible,
you'd have a manual P&S with Leica glass on it, what a waste.
This lens mount will result in a Live View, P&S system with exchangable lenses. Just to accomodate those Olympus DSLR users that sometimes consider their DSLR too bulky.
I honestly can't see any good come from it. Our best bet is finding someone personally interested in RF photography at the controls of a big company to invest in a digital RF with MF lenses.
Maybe Cosina will take to manufacturing the Panny / Olympus bodies, and Mr. Kobayashi will personally decide to pull another rabbit out of the digital-RF hat.
A digital Bessa with full frame sensor and 1:1 finder would be nice. I'd opt for the fold-away LCD screen and the cocking lever of the R-D1s as well, just to sustain the sensation of true photography.
Please PM me for my receiving address
srtiwari
Daktari
Website dpreview.com quotes the Press statement, which states that the Micro FourThirds system will aim for a smaller than 'Regular' FourThirds sensor.
Johan,
Actually it says ..." The Micro Four Thirds system uses the same sensor size (18 x 13.5 mm) but allows slimmer cameras by removing the mirror box and optical viewfinder..."
Subhash
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Faulty math on my part (never my strong subject). Yet a 25/0.7 lens is not an option, so my argument stands- the qualities depth of field bring to an image are reduced. I'll admit that most people don't care as long as their friend is in focus enough to recognize. This lowest common denominator drives most marketing like it or not.
Only if the sensor is smaller still- a larger sensor would mitigate this. Smaller isn't always better, and as 'cameras' become smaller and smaller this seems to be getting clearer and clearer. I can barely hold some of these newest digital cameras, let alone fiddle with the tiny buttons and control wheels the size of a dime. But again, I'm clearly in the crazy minority here.
But what makes a Panasonic a Leica? There are loads of Panasonic digicams with Leica lenses, I would suppose that Leica is making some money there. A Panasonic camera with a Leica dot on it is still a Panasonic camera- the D-Lux 3 isn't much different than the Panasonic version, and most or all of those differences are in the shell. All this talk of Leica needing to make cheap sh!t cameras for the masses played out already in the 80's with a line of lousy P&S film cameras, failures in every respect. Ever increasing sales figures for the sake of ever increasing sales figures is a very American way of looking at a company- not necessarily the best way.
Last edited:
Ray Nalley
Well-known
But what is Leica's option? To make increasingly expensive cameras for the few? I'm not sure that is a very good direction forward, either.
georgef
Well-known
I think I got comparing the micro 4/3s to the M system previously; bad comparisson, I think.
LEICA, ZEISS and Voigtlander, really, are the only companies that have a vested interest in M mount bodies, given they still produce the lenses.
Maybe what Olympus will do, is to create the micro 4/3s to be the new "small, portable, shoot from the hip alternative" camera system; basically what the RF was to the film SLRs.
Sure it may not have the equivelant of the M lenses, but that IMHO is relevant mostly to people like us, who own and use the M standard. To someone who is looking to get into photography with more control than a P&S but not the bulk of a DSLR, this may be it!
I dont think we are looking at this from the right perspective: besides the size and lack of a mirror, the similarities between IT and an RF end there.
LEICA, ZEISS and Voigtlander, really, are the only companies that have a vested interest in M mount bodies, given they still produce the lenses.
Maybe what Olympus will do, is to create the micro 4/3s to be the new "small, portable, shoot from the hip alternative" camera system; basically what the RF was to the film SLRs.
Sure it may not have the equivelant of the M lenses, but that IMHO is relevant mostly to people like us, who own and use the M standard. To someone who is looking to get into photography with more control than a P&S but not the bulk of a DSLR, this may be it!
I dont think we are looking at this from the right perspective: besides the size and lack of a mirror, the similarities between IT and an RF end there.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
This would be the press release -
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp
and this would be the quote -
"The Micro Four Thirds system uses the same sensor size (18 x 13.5 mm) but allows slimmer cameras by removing the mirror box and optical viewfinder."
So it isn't smaller than "regular" four thirds at all.
Yes I quite like the thought of my 40/1.4 becoming a short portrait lens.
Why do you think any product with a limited production would be significantly cheaper than the RD1 was at launch?
aizan
Veteran
i'm not too worried about maximizing how shallow i can get the dof. composition, getting the right relation of subject to ground, is more important than just washing out the background. that's the easy way out. in any case, lenses in the standard range (35-50mm equiv.) won't be so short as to eliminate the ability to blur the background. didn't someone post an example earlier taken with the 25/1.4?
jasperamsterdam
Established
tmfabian, indeed
If one wants fov 50mm. so one has to buy 24mm 2.8 which are generally expensive. So you cannot have 50 fov at f1.4
of course the 4:3 requires own lenses but they are still bulky as hell. Compare that with old Elmar 3.5
I believe some of the whole point of the Micro4/3 is that they can create much smaller lenses..
I am very much looking foreward to further news.. i have been shooting dslr most of the years, just bought a m6 mostly for form / size. My f30 is nice but doesnt cut it for stunning prints.
4/3 sensor is much bigger than all compacts
(this will prbl be cursing in the church but...)
plus i have high hopes for its video! saw some clips of the sigma, too much limited in resolution (i think 320.240) but chipsize does show in video aswell!
Last edited:
Ray Nalley
Well-known
The "Micro" is about creating smaller bodies. The sensor is either 4/3's or it's not.
jasperamsterdam
Established
see the wonderfull
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html