Some Simple 4/3 Questions

LOL, that Canon DSLR looks like a 4x5 reflex next to it!

So...Nobody knows, how much are those m-to-micro-4/3 converters? I mean, approximately!
 
Another, perhaps weird question:
Is autofocus working and okay for manual focus (M) lenses and adapter?

I mean, if they move the chip, why couldn't it work...? :)
 
Heh, Zappa quotes on RFF, don't see that too often. :)

€149 for the Novoflex MFT/LEM.

If Oly sticks to their Pen history, and to their Photokina mockup, their first offering will be essentially a G10 with interchangeable lenses and no optical VF. No EVF, no LCD on a swivel.

To me this would make it somewhat more difficult to use manual focus lenses, even if they had the focus assist like the G1. I'm trying to visualize the process of zooming in on the LCD to focus while holding the camera at arm's length, looking at the LCD on the back of the camera.

If indeed Oly goes that design direction (ala Pen F), it's probably because they want to people to buy their offering of pocketable µ4/3 lenses (primes, I hope!)

Will the Oly have in-body VR? Remains to be seen, since not all of their 4/3 models have it.

I'm impressed with what Panasonic has done the first time out with the G1. Yes, they want to sell ten zillion of these, but the last firmware update improved manual focus operation. Now, I wonder who exactly does that cater to? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
uhh
let's see, the adorama price is 800 usd at the moment (let's forget now that the very same thing is above 1000 euro over here...). Add a 200 bucks adapter to that. Suppose you have some lenses already, it's still up to 1000$ or more!
I'm a bit disappointed. :(
 
They want to sell ten zillion of these? At 800 bucks which only includes a cheap and slow kit zoom?
oh man. Am i that far behind the world economy?
 
kuzano said:
And it might no be a myth if they would develop the ISO and Dynamic range,
Click to expand...

Whatever makes you think that usable ISO is not increasing, or that dynamic range is not increasing? To the best of my knowledge, both get better with every generation of sensors, full-frame as well as APS-C and so on.

instead of packing more pixels on the sensors, not to mention we are years away from a pleasing camera dimension with a full frame sensor.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you mean by a 'pleasing camera dimension'. What?

Mo Pixels is Betta... Sorry, that story is getting old.
Click to expand...

I've certainly said no such thing.

If that's all you think the so-called 'full frame' sensor offers, then you are woefully ignorant about the physics and economics of photography.

A larger sensor gives the opportunity to place larger sensors on the imaging surface, which results in less 'noise' that has to be processed out. This also has had the pleasant effect of increasing those things you seem to feel full-frame sensors do not have, including higher effective ISO and dynamic range.

A larger sensor, like larger film sizes, gives better control over depth-of-field effects.

A full-frame sensor can take advantage of the existing plethora of excellent lenses originally developed for 35mm film cameras at their intended focal lengths (rather than the doubling effect of 2x crop on four-thirds sensors), as well as taking advantage of the huge amount of research already done for lens design and optimization done for lenses made for this format.

In terms of digital image sensors, all else being equal, larger equals better, as it does in the film world. A lower percentage of enlargement to reach a common printing size, such as 8x10 or 11x14 will tend to look better - hence the superiority of medium format to 35mm format film for billboards, etc.

Smaller sensors have their place, and they continue to get better, so eventually some of the inbuilt disadvantages to smaller sensors will no doubt disappear. However, the advantages of a larger sensor over a smaller one in terms of DOF will remain, it's just physics.

So I do not know what this 'myth of full-frame' is. No myth, just facts.

And as usual - I do not harbor any ill-will towards smaller sensors, and I do not see this as an 'us versus them' battle - but as always, some do. If they like rangefinders, then SLRs suck. If they like film, then digital sucks. If they like the four-thirds standard, then all other sizes suck - and so on. Isms are what sucks, my friend. Get over yourself.
 
Pherdinand said:
uhh
let's see, the adorama price is 800 usd at the moment (let's forget now that the very same thing is above 1000 euro over here...). Add a 200 bucks adapter to that. Suppose you have some lenses already, it's still up to 1000$ or more!
I'm a bit disappointed. :(
Click to expand...

they can be had on ebay from 500 bucks and up.
the kit lens is far from cheap, it is slow but incredibly sharp. not many kit lenses have asph elements and ed glass.
cq will have adapters soon, selling at $175.
 
Not sure about Europe but they are going for under $600, sometimes under $500 if you shop right.
 

Attachments

  • g1sold.jpg
    g1sold.jpg
    37.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
bmattock said:
So I do not know what this 'myth of full-frame' is. No myth, just facts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the 'myth' being referenced is that small sensors can't produce quality photos...if that's the argument, it's just not true.

The noise situation is very overblown, IMHO. We thought nothing of the grain inherent with pushed Tri-X, and now it for some reason it seems any trace of noise is completely unacceptable.

All these 100% crops on the web are to blame. The only people I know that make huge enlargements (for trade show displays, etc.) aren't using small sensors, they know what they are doing, and the people that view these are not putting their eyes a few inches from the print. :)
 
Just checked quickly the Adorama 'kit price' (didn't see it witout the lens, though) and on a "where's cheaper" Dutch site.

Thanks for the info, by the way!
 
digitalintrigue said:
Perhaps the 'myth' being referenced is that small sensors can't produce quality photos...if that's the argument, it's just not true.
Click to expand...

I agree. And again, I caution against 'isms'. I like both large and small sensors just fine. It's not a religion, for crying out loud.

Why I can't like both is beyond me, but apparently, we are supposed to take a stand for one camp or another and call the other names. I won't play.
 
bmattock said:
I was unaware that four-thirds was going to be a new religion.
Click to expand...

Everything is a religion when it comes to brands. Except Leica, of course, everybody has the right to trash it for whatever reason, it's in the Declaration of Human Rights, somewhere. :rolleyes:
 
digitalintrigue said:
g1novo40.jpg
Click to expand...

Hawt dang. I think I just found me-self a new camera.
 
Pherdinand said:
They want to sell ten zillion of these? At 800 bucks which only includes a cheap and slow kit zoom?
oh man. Am i that far behind the world economy?
Click to expand...

The kit lens is wonderful. It can hold its own against almost any digital zoom. Possibly even fixed fl.

/T
 
I'm looking forward to using my old MD Minolta glass with this new camera. I have a Tokina 80-200/F2.8 that would, on the G1, be equivalent in angle of view to a 160-400 @ F/2.8 (at all focal lengths.) Maybe I'll have to take up birding just to enjoy using this combination. Or surveillance!

~Joe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tuolumne said:
The kit lens is wonderful. It can hold its own against almost any digital zoom. Possibly even fixed fl.

/T
Click to expand...

There is a simple reason for that. The lens is specifically designed and fine-tuned with G1's sensor characteristics in mind...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom