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

[thrid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

There are some rumblings out there that Nikon may be getting ready to release a G9 'killer' with the APS chip from the D60. Now that would be impressive, especially if they stuck the equivalent of an f2 or f2.8 35mm lens on it...

 

But at the very least Nikon is supposed to release the P6000, which will be their version of the G9.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[FastFashnReloaded]

There would no place for a proper rangefinder in this damn camera, it'll only focus by contrast, there's nothing fancy about this, the Sigma DP1, Sony R1 and probably another bunch of point and shooters introduced at the Kina will all have bigger sensors than this one.

 

Why would someone bother to change lenses for a pocket camera? so they screwed 4/3 by themselves, I'm waiting to see how they'll screw this one 2 years later.

 

Hey, any camera that can take great pix is a good camera, and my (3 so far) Oly SLRs take great pix. So open your mind. Not everyone wants a Canikon.

 

Geex. People get so religious...

[FastFashnReloaded]

The Four Thirds is dead.

 

Luminous landscape

 

No it isn't.

 

Silly hamster.

[FastFashnReloaded]

I can only "prove" an interesting point: I can argue without insulting. It is a valuable lesson for you.

 

I can also give reasons that support my opinions. This new "micro" system has advantages: smaller size. Image quality will not be affected, because the sensor size is the same. This will erode the sales of miniature reflex cameras like the E420. The 4/3 system presents the size as its basic advantage, and now comes this new concept with smaller size, probably price, and the same sensor. I doubt the E3 alone will be able to sustain the entire system.

 

Well, nice that the E3 isn't the only camera in the lineup then.

[FastFashnReloaded]

The Contax G cameras had autofocus lenses, and no mirror... How that system was designed?

 

I've had two, a G1 and a G2, and it was a rangefinder - only the RF was electronic and microprocessor controlled.

 

Great cameras.

[mooky]

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.

 

Agreed Andy. I also would agree with an another, earlier comment that this could make things interesting. Though I'm still of the belief that the viewing/viewfinder/ methods/technology still have a way to go - but we'll all see in about a month if Leica will re-badge it - or, how much, if any Leica had to do with it.

[gepetto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The micro 4/3rds seems like it is getting closer to the old Pentax 110 camera formula. 110 film is roughly the same size as the 4/3rds sensor.

 

Looks like this new system will make for a nice small travel kit.

[jjvornov]

I've had two, a G1 and a G2, and it was a rangefinder - only the RF was electronic and microprocessor controlled.

 

Great cameras.

 

It's interesting that at the end of the film era there were electronic autofocus that depended on these electronic systems. My Olympus Stylus Epic sometimes misfocused, but mostly I could put the focus point on the subject, half press, recompose and release the shutter. It used infrared electronic rangefinding if I recall correctly.

 

My understanding is that contrast detection is slow because it's a pure error correction method so the lens has to keep moving until the image is optimized. If it gets fooled, it hunts or fails to find focus. The speed and accuracy in the DP1 isn't bad in decent light, but its much slower than the phase detection in a DSLR.

[MP3]

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.....

 

....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....

 

Ditto Andy

 

The M4/3 is in fact what every Digilux 2 user been kept asking. Now after the Digilux 3, they path out the right way for a compact, high IQ, silent system with 4/3 image circle optimized Leica lenses. My favored lens lineup would include a

 

- Elmarit-D 10.5/f2.8 or Super-Angulon-D 10.5/f3.4

- Vario Summicron-D 14-42/f2 and

- Vario Elmar-D 50-200/f3.5

 

For casual use, I will have no worry on the lens quality. Only if they can give us

 

- an 1m pixel 60f/s EVF,

- an alternative OVF,

- a very decent ISO800 and

- dynamic range response,

 

what else shall we D2 fans long for ... Name it Digilux 3M or Digilux M3

[Sandokan]

Maybe I am missing the point. I dont really care if the M4/3 is NOT a rangefinder.

 

I want a small camera that fits in my briefcase or jacket pocket for everyday carry. I have a Minox 35GL which gives acceptable results and an Oly XA which gives very good results but both are film of course.

 

I look forward to a small(ish) camera with good lenses (even a 17-35 zoom) and "large" sensor. Before this announcement, the Sigma DP1 was on my list as well as the Oly 420 with the 25 pancake lens. Now I will simply wait until after my birthday before deciding my new toy.

 

Ravi

[Riley]

no Ravi you are right

i can see consistently that people are seriously misinterpreting this camera format.

 

It is a compact camera, it just happens to have interchangeable lenses and a larger sensor. It is not meant to displace dSLRs although that might happen in some limited ways

What mFT is is a good step up from compacts as we know it

What mFT isnt is a replacement format for 4/3rds SLRs

 

if it *never* has an OVF, its just like any other P&S

the AF at worst is just like any other P&S

it wont see much pro use just like any other P&S

 

is it likely better than any other P&S.......yes

is it likely better than any other P&S include DP1.......due to IC, i would say yes. Because the main fault with DP1 is its relatively slow F4 lens

 

people here have been lamenting the loss of d2 and seeking an upgrade from that position. Now a smaller suitable contender has arrived with interchangeable lenses and an even larger sensor and 3 stops better noise performance, whats the problem with that.

[Guest stnami]

Riley do ya reckon that the blowing out of highlight quirks will be rectified?

[Riley]

Riley do ya reckon that the blowing out of highlight quirks will be rectified?

 

when i had an E300 it happened a lot in our strong sun, yet that sort of thing was never mentioned as a camera problem, it was a photographer problem.

 

Now I have an E3 it happens but its rare, i know it got a mention in dp review and they gave an example of a church door, it was clearly half pressed, moved and shot, the image was well out of alignment. So they bitched about it of course but never mentioned how a photographer might avoid it as an issue. If the camera was doing that to me i would either shoot RAW and recover, or -e/v, or use iso bracketing, where the shutter fires once and the camera makes 3 images up to a stop apart. Then merge the images in Photomatix or some such software. That adds at least 2 stops to DR yet they didnt even discuss that feature. They had to be told on the forum to set the resolution higher (LF from LN) when taking the resolution shoots.

 

That said it seems that successive 4/3rds sensors have better DR and noise performance and I admit that they really did needed to get along with some changes from the Kodak days. The 420/520 from what I hear are not far behind E3, I cant see mFT being much different.

 

Anyhoo, my experience is it isnt something that I have an issue with, if i do its me not the camera, ymmv

for what i do FF offers no real advantages

heres one i screwed indoors (see doorway) iso640 1/30th F4.5 no flash

we published it anyway

[SMF]

Forgive my ignorance, who makes the 4/3 sensor for Olympus/Panasonic? Doesn't Kodak produce a 4/3 sensor which can have offset micro-lenses (a la M8) - I think it's the KAF 8300 - or wouldn't this be within the agreed specification?

 

Stephen

[Riley]

Forgive my ignorance, who makes the 4/3 sensor for Olympus/Panasonic? Doesn't Kodak produce a 4/3 sensor which can have offset micro-lenses (a la M8) - I think it's the KAF 8300 - or wouldn't this be within the agreed specification?

 

Stephen

 

Stephen thats the E300 sensor, now pretty old and outdated and couldn't do LiveView (its a CCD). Probably 2 stops behind E3 for noise at least.

[stevelap]

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.

 

Therein lies the problem. Whichever way you slice it 4/3rds is always at a disadvantage IQ wise when compared to its competitors with bigger sensors and larger photosites, be they APS-C, APS-H or full-frame. And with Nikon et al rumoured to be developing APS-C/H hi-end compact cameras that situation is likely to continue.

If Micro APS (for want of a better generic name) vendors also introduce interchangeable lenses on some models, where might that leave Micro 4/3rds?

 

An interesting development non the less, particularly for PanaLeica aficionados, and a possible pointer to a new Digilux? Personally however, much as I wish Olympus well, I can't help but see 4/3rds as a technological dead-end.

[rosuna]

Well, nice that the E3 isn't the only camera in the lineup then.

 

I am sure Olympus will present new 4/3 cameras, but this doesn't change the forecast. The M4/3 has some balance of benefits and limitations, and the 4/3 system haven't. This was obvious before, and it is more obvious now.

[Guest stnami]

Eventually you too will be dead Rosuna as we all will be.......... so what's the big deal about the camera I doubt if you care anyway....................

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

The newly announced Micro Four Thirds standard, and its lack of a mirror box, sounds just like the ticket to build a 4/3 sensor RF camera, besides one that uses an EVF or Live View to focus. The new system will have 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapters, and sounds just like it could be a very good way of building digi RF to me. Too bad that it will have a small 4/3 sensor (with all that comes with it, limited DR, noise, etc) and that it will probably never be able to use M lenses.

 

What do you guys think of this news?

 

I think its very interesting news and I think the idea of someone building a less expensive DRF (manual focus, true rangefinder) based on this platform is intriguing. A rangefinder mechanism doesn't give 100% accurate focus all the time but it normally gives excellent focus. The additional DOF (effectively) that will come with the wider lenses (for a given EFOV) could help to mitigate the effects of slight mis-focus. Of course, as we know, AF isn't perfect either.

 

With a crop factor of 2.0 X, this camera would, of course, need wide lenses. The compact CV 25/4.0 would have the EFOV of a 50, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Thank you for this information. However, I am asking myself, if they are reducing flange distance from 40 mm down to 20 mm AND lens mount diameter from 50 mm down to 44 mm, then the angle in which the light approaches the sensor in the periphery will become smaller. Therefore, a stronger vignetting should occur?

 

Regards, Peter.

 

It depends on the lens design.

 

Cheers,