Micro 4/3 an alternative to digital M? (Merged)

[manolo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

why couldn't they do the same with R & M lenses? have an M type camera with which you could use both M & R lenses with adapters. So there are 2 sensor sizes:

 

4/3 & "fullframe or larger"

[Riley]

since the small lenses are not telecentric

id be wary of how well M lenses would work, although no doubt some will, it will be hit and miss. It is just like this with OM lenses. They have worked out something new, so that they can apply new principles to achieve the same ends

[andybarton]

To get the effect of a rangefinder view you'll need two overlaying images, so there'll be two EVFs, or may be two sensors one sits behind the other, you move this way, he moves that way.

 

I was meaning with regards to the framelines, not the rangefinder overlay itself.

[earleygallery]

Just read dpreview. It sounds interesting. The thing with 4/3rds that I never 'got' was that the cameras - in particular the Digilux - was as large or larger than typical Nikon/Canon DSLR's so didn't offer any advantage in having a smaller sensor.

 

IQ with the small sensor is still going to be an issue, unless they have something up their collective sleeves.

[larry]

This new 4/3 iteration seems like a positive development with a lot of potential. I've been impressed with Olympus' build and image quality since the OM-1, but they always seem to hobble their products in some way. Maybe they'll ditch the quirkiness this time.

 

Larry

[Riley]

James of course you are right

its clear by the size of these lenses that they are non telecentric, but we need to understand that the lenses exit very close to the filmplane and are likely designed to control off axis light. Since the exit is so close, they can hardly lose in that dept.

 

If you meant the sensors themselves, they are good for 800iso now, probably about the 2/3 stop behind canon the form factor allows

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having a viewfinder where one can see "outside" the framelines is AN attribute of SOME rangefinder cameras - it does NOT define the class.

 

The Leica screwmount cameras up to the IIIf (i.e. for 30 years) did not have framelines - just a solid-edged finder for a 50mm.

 

Clearly they were rangefinder cameras - they focused by measuring the distance ("range") to the subject via mechnicoptical triangulation ("finding") rather than observing a sharp or fuzzy lens image on a ground glass.

 

Having clarified that silliness, I'll go take a look at the micro4/3rds announcements (although didn't Panny and thus Leica already drop out of the consortium?)

[manolo]

ok, and two pankake tipe lenses also.

[andybarton]

Having a viewfinder where one can see "outside" the framelines is AN attribute of SOME rangefinder cameras - it does NOT define the class.

 

I know that, but the whole point of this thread is that this is supposed to be an alternative to a digital M (the clue is in the title) - which does have framelines and does use mechanics to indicate focus in the viewfinder

 

IMHO, shoot me down in flames if you wish (I don't care), there is no way that any electronic viewfinder can ever replace the viewfinder in a real Leica rangefinder camera.

[Riley]

Having clarified that silliness, I'll go take a look at the micro4/3rds announcements (although didn't Panny and thus Leica already drop out of the consortium?)

 

Andy that rumour was pretty quickly retracted, this inception of mFT is a collaboration between Panasonic and Olympus,

 

Olympus / Panasonic announce Micro Four Thirds: Digital Photography Review

Olympus and Panasonic have announced a new, mirrorless format / lens mount based on (and compatible with) Four Thirds.

[Riley]

I know that, but the whole point of this thread is that this is supposed to be an alternative to a digital M (the clue is in the title) - which does have framelines and does use mechanics to indicate focus in the viewfinder

 

IMHO, shoot me down in flames if you wish (I don't care), there is no way that any electronic viewfinder can ever replace the viewfinder in a real Leica rangefinder camera.

 

that might be my fault, and i related it to what Kaufmann said in this interview

Drei-Stufen-Plan für Leica - DIE WELT - WELT ONLINE

a kind of small digital M, really his words not mine

 

as to EVF, or the so called EVIL, there are losses and gains, but there are significant advantages that shouldnt be lost in a discussion before it is dismissed for preference

 

source: the irrepressible Joseph S. Wisniewski

 

1/ Exact framing: An EVF can easily display exactly the image that you will take. For a conventional SLR camera, 100% accuracy requires painstaking (and therefore expensive) alignment procedures. This is why all but the most expensive SLRs have viewfinders that cover between 85% and 95% of the actual image.

2/ If you want to shoot black and white, an EVF lets you see and compose in black and white.

3/ If you shoot with an infrared filter, you get a bright, clear, visible preview of your "invisible" picture.

4/ You can stop down to do a depth of field preview without having the display go dim. (I don't think anyone is actually implementing this yet, but with an EVF, they could.

5/ You don't have the parallax and barrel distortion of a modern SLR focusing screen (those ultra bright screens they have these days only scatter light over a fairly narrow cone, it's a cross between old-fashioned ground glass and a pure ariel image). When you move your eye behind such a finder, the framing actually changes.

6/ Instant zoom in for critical focusing. You don't have to buy an extra focus magnifier.

7/ They provide a bright viewfinder in moderately dark situations.

8/ On demand grid lines, crop lines, centered crosshairs, reticule, etc. An EVF can display as much information, guidelines, etc. as desired, or give you a "clean view". Want a superimposed histogram? It's available.

9/ They are movable, and remote operation is possible. Some "SLR style" EVFs tilt up and down, so you can look down into the camera for low angle shots. "Back panel" LCD displays frequently tilt and swivel.

[Iron Flatline]

My goodness the Semantic Panties are knotted... I'm not sure if I care whether it is a Rangefinder by various definitions. What I want is a small camera with super-high quality sensor and lenses. Let it be a lot smaller than the current crop of SLRs, and I'd be happy.

[adan]

Thanks, Riley - I noted that quickly once I went to dpreview.

 

Andy - oh certainly an EVF is not an RF - but see below

 

I don't see anything in the specs that PRECLUDES a given M4/3 (let's abbreviate it) camera from having an optical viewfinder, so long as it conforms in making live view available. Just as the D-Lux 3 does not allow for an accesory viewfinder - but the D-Lux 4 (Lumix LX-3) likely will.

 

My crystal ball says the M4/3 standard will be the basis for a Digilux 4 rather than a compact M. With a compact 12mm-36mm f/2.0-3.5 zoom ("24-72" effective). POSSIBLY with a zooming but non-focusing optical viewfinder in place of the Digilux 2's EVF. Just the way I'll bet until photokina or other announcements to the contrary.

 

I'm not clear on whether the M4/3rds cameras will use focal-plane shutters or not - seems like a dust issue with interchangeable lenses if they do not.

 

I guess an M4/3 "M rangefinder" is possible with the right hardware to link the lenses through the micro-mount to a rangefinder....

 

....but a self-contained new system with it's own lens set (plus the option to use "real" M lenses via live-view) seems more elegant and likely. 4 lenses to start (scaled to the M4/3 mount) 12 f/2.8, 18 f/2, 25 f1.4, 45 f/2 (or 2.8). The electronic framelines everyone wanted in the M8.

 

Anyway - September IS going to get interesting.

[Bob Ross]

 

I'm not clear on whether the M4/3rds cameras will use focal-plane shutters or not - seems like a dust issue with interchangeable lenses if they do not.

 

From Ian Burley's site Four Thirds User, the cameras will have the SSWF (dust buster) like all othe 4/3rds bodies have. I suspect there will be shutters, which means the shutter is open for viewing on EVF/LCD, closes to clear sensor and then fires to expose/capture. My E-3 has the shutter open mirror up for Live View and when the shutter is pressed the mirror goes down, AF & metering take place, while the senor clears and the the shutter opens for exposure. Sort of clankety clank, but it works.

Bob

[audidudi]

I am sure there will be a Digilux in there eventually and I will buy one. Maybe it'll be possible to take M mount lenses. Who knows.

 

I would gladly settle for an updated 4/3-version of the Digilux 2. In fact, if PanaLeica can keep it roughly the same size as the D2, provide the same image quality as the D3, significantly improve the EVF and RAW processing speed, and keep the price under $2k, then I'll buy two of them.

[Guest stnami]

All this hoo ha is great but will Oly address the problem of the 4/3 sensor, the tendency for the system to blow out the highlights, this is inherent in all the cameras by Oly.

[thrid]

I hope Leica doesn't jump on this bandwagon. 4/3rds is a technological dead end.

The individual receptors are getting too small to deliver competitive dynamic range and high iso performance as the megapixel count goes up.

 

Even APS which is slightly bigger, is starting to reach it's limits, as the sensors hit 12MP.

 

The future lies with APS-H (x1.3), full frame (x1) and oversize sensors, unless there is a breakthrough with true color sensors that do not rely on Bayer pattern technology.

 

Also due to the x2 mag factor, we'll also end up with a camera with twice the amount of DOF at the same stop, as a full frame camera. That may work to our advantage in some occasions, but makes it difficult to isolate a subject with anything but a fairly long lens.

 

If Leica is going to make a low cost digital CL it better be APS at a minimum (x1.5). APS-H, as used in the M8 would be even better. Maybe Sony will sell them a version of the APS chip that is in the Nikon D300. Now, that would be a great camera.

[rosuna]

Just read dpreview. It sounds interesting. The thing with 4/3rds that I never 'got' was that the cameras - in particular the Digilux - was as large or larger than typical Nikon/Canon DSLR's so didn't offer any advantage in having a smaller sensor.

 

IQ with the small sensor is still going to be an issue, unless they have something up their collective sleeves.

 

The mount to focal plane distance in 4/3 (39mm) relative to sensor diagonal (22,5mm) is very large, and it affects the size of the lenses. The M4/3 has the same sensor of the 4/3 system, but the cameras and lenses will be significantly smaller. This new system has clear advantages that compensate for the also evident disadvantages. It wasn't the case of the 4/3 system. IMHO.

[sdai]

What I want is a small camera with super-high quality sensor and lenses.

 

The Sigma DP1 is a pocket camera with a sensor bigger than 4/3, the 28mm lens is no slouch either.

 

I'm wondering what will happen if someone else build a digicam with a 1.5x APS-C size sensor ... will Olympus bring out a Nano 4/3 system? LOL

 

Folks, think about it ... there's only that much can be done. Current flock of high end digicams such as the Canon G9, Fuji S100 or the Nikon P5100, etc. has a smaller sensor and much shorter "flange" distance, they still don't fit into your pocket. The new Oly/Panasonic camera is not going to be smaller than any of those.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

If Leica is going to make a low cost digital CL it better be APS at a minimum (x1.5). APS-H, as used in the M8 would be even better. Maybe Sony will sell them a version of the APS chip that is in the Nikon D300. Now, that would be a great camera.

 

Sony has always indicated that they'd sell the sensor to anyone who wants to buy it and APS-C sensors are quite cheap nowadays. The differences between adopting a 4/3 sensor and a APS-C size sensor when consider their contribution to the overall cost of a DSLR is marginal, the technological advantage by adopting a APS-C sensor easily makes up the minor cost difference.