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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...yet even by your measurements it goes like this

K20D 142 x 101 x 70 = 1,003,940 cubic mm

E420 129.5 x 91 x 53 = 624,578 cubic mm or around 62%...

So the E420 is 38% less bulky than the K20D. I was right no?

[FastFashnReloaded]

You guys should take a look at this picture, the so called micro lens won't be much smaller than the original 4/3 lens at all.

 

And you want to add accessories such as external finders, flashs, adapters, converters to it? LOL

 

Don't be fooled by Olympus again ... I'm not sure whether they're insulting their customers' intelligence or their own.

 

 

Don't be fooled by Olympus again... What IS your problem? My (3 at last count) Oly SLRs take great pix. So, what EXACTLY, is Oly fooling me about?

[FastFashnReloaded]

50% smaller than APS-C sensors if i'm not wrong but 4/3 bodies are not 50% less bulky by far, see the tiny Pentax K20D for instance. Reason why the 4/3 format has no future i'm afraid but this does not alter the fact that Zuiko lenses are often superb indeed. Too bad they're not done for 'normal' APS-C cameras though.

 

LCT, people have been saying that RFs are obsolete for... Um, let's see. Oh! About fifty years now. So, why do people DARE to stand against the great Republican (sorry I mean Public) Opinion and keep making RFs? I mean, Leica and Zeiss and Voigtlander RFs HAVE NO FUTURE!

 

Darn you people for not listening to the Canikon (and Leica close-minded personages) reps! They know better than you about everything!!!

 

Look, cameras like the M8 and whatever happens with the R will not sustain Leica. Leica NEEDS middle grade cameras and partners that know electronics or it will die a painful death. So, get used to Oly and Panasonic and such having input and feedback and re-badging on Leica gear. Get used to it, get over it. Seriously.

[FastFashnReloaded]

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

 

Do you actually use Oly equipment? Do you suppose the antiquated microprocessor and limited memory in the M8 will ever be rectified?

 

Man but these Oly cameras are just AWFUL!

 

 

[Guest stnami]

Olympus and Pana don't give a hoot about what you guys want or think. They have their customer base mainly the Asian market where Panasonic in particular are huge and that is where their interests are (the D3 and E-3 are too bid for their market but keep us Caucasians interested)

The so called "photographers" as here are chicken feed to them, so don't get your knickers in a knot over the camera or system, when 4:3 goes kaput they will have moved on........

[Guest stnami]

Do you actually use Oly equipment?

Still have a OM1 and OM3 somewhere in the house .................... have a E-410 and a E-300 that lives over a friends place. The 410 is a right bitch with highlights the 300 was somewhat better

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LCT, people have been saying that RFs are obsolete for... Um, let's see. Oh! About fifty years now. So, why do people DARE to stand against the great Republican (sorry I mean Public) Opinion and keep making RFs?...

Because it's the law of supply and demand, Dana. I may be wrong of course but my guess is there will be no demand enough for 4/3 because APS-C is superior for a similar price it's as simple like that. Now my favourite R-D1 and Digilux 1 are no-future-cameras as well so i sympathise with you heartfully.

[sdai]

So, what EXACTLY, is Oly fooling me about?

 

You obviously won't know that you're fooled when you're fooled. LOL

 

My problem? because the Olympus/Panasonic cameras are CHEAP.

[Bob Ross]

Still have a OM1 and OM3 somewhere in the house .................... have a E-410 and a E-300 that lives over a friends place. The 410 is a right bitch with highlights the 300 was somewhat better

They really should fix that ESP metering mode for you guys that use "auto everything"

As I recall, you used an E-1 for a while, too.

As for highlights, my M8 can do the same thing as my E-1 & E-3, only at the price per pixel per image makes blowing a highlight pixel a more serious budget consideration, with the M8......

Bob

[sdai]

Sdai: To be fair you need to compare the 4/3rds lens PLUS its adapter to the m4/3 lens alone.

 

This is exactly what's unfair ... why would anybody waste some money on the 4/3 lenses and then, waste more money on an adapter???

[sdai]

The micro 4/3 system is a complete joke from the beginning. As soon as one mainstream camera company adopts a APS-C sensor in a pocket camera this will immediately become one dead fish.

[jrc]

The essential problem with 4/3 is that in virtually all of its parameters, there's something close to it that will do the job a little better, or a little cheaper, or both. Also, all of the competing top-end digital systems that are ASC-sized now use lenses that have the potential for use in an eventual FF system (Pentax, Sony, Leica.)

 

JC

[rosuna]

The micro 4/3 system is a complete joke from the beginning. As soon as one mainstream camera company adopts a APS-C sensor in a pocket camera this will immediately become one dead fish.

 

That camera company will be forced to present a new system of bodies and lenses. The M4/3 is based on the supression of the mirror box. The only actual system that can be "adapted" to support a EVL camera is the M system, and for a much bigger format!

 

Of course, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Samsung or Sony can do it, but would have to sell a third system of lenses (35mm, APS-C and the new system). This is no small barrier.

[Riley]

So the E420 is 38% less bulky than the K20D. I was right no?

 

you were right no, is right, because you are wrong

K20D 142 x 101 x 70 = 1,003,940 cubic mm

E420 129.5 x 91 x 53 = 624,578 cubic mm

 

so 624,578 x 1.6073893092616134413956303295985

=1,003,940 cubic mm

you need to add 60% of 420 volume to equal K20D

therefore K20D is 60% bigger

[sdai]

Of course, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Samsung or Sony can do it, but would have to sell a third system of lenses (35mm, APS-C and the new system). This is no small barrier.

 

Sorry if I haven't made myself clearer, Ruben. I was specifically talking about a fixed lens digicam using a APS-C size sensor. There were the Sony R1 and the Sigma DP1 in this category already, both used a sensor larger than the 4/3 size, and I believe more will come in the not so distant future.

 

I mean, the micro 4/3 concept O and P try to sell to the public is self-contradictory, who of those wanting a compact size camera would bother to carry 2, 3 or even more interchangeable lenses, plus several accessories around?

 

Imagine that someone doing a Digilux 2 cloner with a APS-C sensor, now that would be a smash hit taking the whole segment over.

[ho_co]

Riley--check your math (post #114).

 

%Change is defined as :

 

(NEW value - OLD value) / OLD value

 

So E420 is 37.79% smaller than K20D, as lct said.

 

 

Or K20D is 60.74% larger than E420, as you said.

 

 

The two values represent the same relationship.

[ho_co]

... then the angle in which the light approaches the sensor in the periphery will become smaller. Therefore, a stronger vignetting should occur?

It depends on the lens design.

 

As well as on the sensor design, à la M8.

 

As Rubén said in the LuLa M8 article he mentions in post #13, the importance of telecentricity was originally overestimated.

 

Olympus took the point of view that one should redesign lenses to match the sensor. Kodak/Leica decided to redesign the sensor to match the lenses. Both ways work.

 

So you're right, Peter, moving the ray angle away from 90 degrees does require adjustments, but they are adjustments that have already been achieved.

 

Similarly when people claim that a given format will never be good enough due to noise or pixel size or pixel count: Given today's standards, they're right. But technology changes.

 

Consider the D3 and D700, where Nikon seems to be saying that better image quality doesn't stem only from mere pixel-effusion.

 

I've got my doubts about FourThirds, but I think Olympus is doing something very interesting here.

[Riley]

Sorry if I haven't made myself clearer, Ruben. I was specifically talking about a fixed lens digicam using a APS-C size sensor. There were the Sony R1 and the Sigma DP1 in this category already, both used a sensor larger than the 4/3 size, and I believe more will come in the not so distant future.

 

I mean, the micro 4/3 concept O and P try to sell to the public is self-contradictory, who of those wanting a compact size camera would bother to carry 2, 3 or even more interchangeable lenses, plus several accessories around?

 

Imagine that someone doing a Digilux 2 cloner with a APS-C sensor, now that would be a smash hit taking the whole segment over.

 

get on your clown suits folks, the circus is here

the R1 had dimensions of 139 x 168 x 97 mm and weighed a massive 2.2lbs

your gonna make a *small* camera out of that ! LOL

usually the idea of small is to *be* small, not gigantic

 

a 28-90 EFL F2 lens would be massive on this thing

unless you make it out of your tinfoil hat it would weigh a pound on its own

 

so i need to say again

this is a *compact camera*, you know, compact like a D Lux 2

with interchangeable lenses you dont need to lug around either a massive/or slow and useless zoom,

you choose what you carry.

 

i cant conceive how a fixed lens camera is either going to be smaller or better

when the object is a compact camera with good IQ, thats a lost cause

[sdai]

i cant conceive how a fixed lens camera is either going to be smaller or better

when the object is a compact camera with good IQ, thats a lost cause

 

We shall leave the clown suit for Olympus and Panasonic ... and everybody will have enough fun here.

 

Let's see how the micro 4/3 is going to beat one target with two benchmarks:

 

1. Can Micro 4/3 beat the size of the DP1?

2. Can Micro 4/3 beat the image quality of the DP1?

 

Their company executives should go home making love instead of making cameras.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Bob Ross]

I mean, the micro 4/3 concept O and P try to sell to the public is self-contradictory, who of those wanting a compact size camera would bother to carry 2, 3 or even more interchangeable lenses, plus several accessories around?

 

Imagine that someone doing a Digilux 2 cloner with a APS-C sensor, now that would be a smash hit taking the whole segment over.

I think that you have a narrow view of "those wanting a compact size camera". Oly's press release indicates that they are targeting those folks with digicams (about 92 million of them) and who wont buy a DSLR because it is too big and heavy. Since you and I aren't in that target group, our comments pro or con are just dust in the wind, to the Oly marketing types, who might end up laughing all the way to the bank.

Your comment about the Digilux 2 might actually "place" micro 4/3rds in Leica's line up. It is the natural evolution step, bigger sensor and interchangeable (small) lenses. Several people who have seen the prototype lenses say they are about half the size of the regular 4/3rds lenses. In that photo that you posted, the lens on the left is one of the two kit lenses 40-150mm and it is tiny. So a smaller Digilux-4mft handled by the consumer camera div. at Leica, with a set of tiny kit lenses, may be where this is going and you don't have anything to worry about in your photo world.

Bob