Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Prognathous on February 28, 2006, 09:33:31 am
-
"I predict that Four Thirds will be as big a dud as its name."
http://luminous-landscape.com/new/pma-2003.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/new/pma-2003.shtml)
"Olympus was the champion of the failed but elegant little half-frame format of the 1960's, and now appears to be heading down the same path."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...lympus-e1.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-e1.shtml)
In the meanwhile, Olympus released three new bodies (E300, E500 and E-330) and quite a few lenses; Sigma released 8 new lenses for the format; Panasonic and Leica announced their support with new products due to be released this year. Have those changes brought any doubts to Four-Thirds-nay-sayers? Michael?
Prog.
-
"I predict that Four Thirds will be as big a dud as its name."
http://luminous-landscape.com/new/pma-2003.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/new/pma-2003.shtml)
"Olympus was the champion of the failed but elegant little half-frame format of the 1960's, and now appears to be heading down the same path."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...lympus-e1.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/olympus-e1.shtml)
In the meanwhile, Olympus released three new bodies (E300, E500 and E-330) and quite a few lenses; Sigma released 8 new lenses for the format; Panasonic and Leica announced their support with new products due to be released this year. Have those changes brought any doubts to Four-Thirds-nay-sayers? Michael?
Prog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Selective quoting is always entertaining. I suppose you might not have seen Michael's video journal review of the E-1, but it was extensive, fair, and ended up with a clear recommendation.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but just because it doesn't work for him, as far as I'm aware he doesn't rule out that it might well work for somebody else.
I would not disagree with his well known "evolutionary dead-end" quote that many people are fond of repeating either, but just because it is ultimately a dead end doesn't mean that it isn't at this point in time the best solution for some people. It is for me. And it isn't perfect.
-
Selective quoting is always entertaining.
What quotes do you think are missing to show his general stance on FourThirds?
I suppose you might not have seen Michael's video journal review of the E-1, but it was extensive, fair, and ended up with a clear recommendation.
I haven't seen it, no, but I don't need anything more than his written review of the camera to understand that he liked it. But that's besides my point.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but just because it doesn't work for him, as far as I'm aware he doesn't rule out that it might well work for somebody else.
Of course, but I'm curious if his perception of the format has changed in view of recent advancements. This has nothing to do really with whether a specific camera "works" or not.
I would not disagree with his well known "evolutionary dead-end" quote that many people are fond of repeating either,
Ok, so please explain why it is an "evolutionary dead-end". I'd like to hear more.
but just because it is ultimately a dead end doesn't mean that it isn't at this point in time the best solution for some people.
I never claimed that it is or not.
Prog.
-
*chomp*
Ok, so please explain why it is an "evolutionary dead-end". I'd like to hear more.
*chomp*
Depends on where the megapixel wars end. Smaller sensor and all. If canon is calling it quits at 8.2 then it has a really good chance. But if it has to do 10 or 12 mp it could get interesting.
Of course how often (outside of landscape photography) is more than 8 (or even 6) mp really required?
-
FourThirds easily outperform 35mm film in image quality, so if film wasn't in an "evolutionary dead-end" for so several decades (and was good enough so that most people didn’t see the need to switch to medium format), why should FourThirds be insufficient? More MP is not the only possible goal in camera development.
Just as much as FourThirds has theoretical image quality disadvantage over APS and FF, it also enjoys a theoretical advantage in terms of portability (size and weight) as well as manufacturing cost. Larger formats are just as much at an "evolutionary dead-end" - it all depends on what you're looking for. Personally, I like FourThirds image quality very well and would be very happy to see R&D budgets invested in other parameters - such as in-camera anti-shake, better portability and usability, better live-view LCD (than what the E330 seems to offer) and yes, god forbid, a movie mode.
Prog.
-
Printing big has become cheap and easy. So what was enough for film is not necesarily enough for digital.
-
...it also enjoys a theoretical advantage in terms of portability (size and weight) as well as manufacturing cost.
And there's the problem IMHO. The one thing that could really push that format forward is just theoretical at this point.
I think the future in 4/3ds depends on camera makers ability to take advantage in the size reduction possible with the smaller sensor. So far, that hasn't happened with cameras and lenses (with exception of long focal-lengths) that aren't much smaller than current APS-C/35mm DSLR systems.
If they get the cameras smaller or at the least the lenses smaller, add some decent wide primes, then focus on features a street shooter would utilize, then I think 4/3ds could have a future. They are showing some promise with innovative things such as the live LCD but they need to do more to distinguish themselves from the standard 35mm format crowd.
-
Printing big has become cheap and easy. So what was enough for film is not necesarily enough for digital.
In practice, the opposite has happened. People tend to print a lot less since viewing pictures on-screen is now so easy and immediate.
Nevertheless, FourThirds quality does allow getting superb prints, so there's no problem even if you do print a lot. Did you actually encounter any inadequate prints that would have been adequate with an APS-sensor camera?
Prog.
-
In practice, the opposite has happened. People tend to print a lot less since viewing pictures on-screen is now so easy and immediate.
Nevertheless, FourThirds quality does allow getting superb prints, so there's no problem even if you do print a lot. Did you actually encounter any inadequate prints that would have been adequate with an APS-sensor camera?
Prog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Printing small is done less but printing big is done far more. You can hang your dell on your wall but it isn't practical.
I use an APS sensor camera. And at 13x19 things can get dicey. Depends on the small detail level.
-
People seem to get so much pleasure out of it when I'm wrong.
If that's the case then I must give a lot of pleasure, because I'm frequently wrong. Who isn't sometimes?
If I was wrong all the time my opinions as a critique wouldn't be worth much. But, fortunately for me, I'm right more often that I'm wrong, so as long as my battting average remains above 500 I'll keep doing what I do.
As for 4/3rds. Yup, looks like it'll survive. What's happened is we've come to a point where about 8MP is sufficient for most amateur needs, and Olympus et al have been able to get decent image quality from small sensors with this high pixel density.
The problem that Olympus had initially, in my opinion, is that they aimed the E1 at the pro market. A few pros adapted it early on, but as the competition produced cameras with larger and higher quality sensors Olympus had problems with their marketing approach. Since they've segued over to the consumer side they've done much better.
Pros need files, much of the time, which are larger than 4/3rd cameras can provide, even at 8MP. The big stock agencies demand minimum 11MP files, and some like Getty 16MP minimum. Ad agencies need to be able to handle double page spreads and still allow for cropping. Most find that anything less than about 11-12MP starts to hurts when this is done.
This says nothing negative about 4/3rd cameras other than the fact that they aren't suiatable for some pro applications because they will always suffer from a smaller sensor. Anything that improves image quality on a 2X sensor will be even better on a 1.3X or 1.5X or 1.6X, (let alone full frame). In the hands of amatuers, and even some pros like wedding and event photographers they do a fine job though.
My concern is that the weight and size savings that were promised have failed to materialize. One look at the new Panasonic L1 makes that clear. And Olympus' lenses, though very high quality, are also high priced, which is problematic for the amateur market that they are now going after. The new Leica 4/3rd lenses aren't going to be inexpensive either.
So in the end 4/3rds isn't going away, and neither will 1.5x and .6X APS C sized sensors, nor will full frame. There's room for all.
So, yes I was wrong.
Feel better?
Michael
-
FTR, I don't think Michael was or is wrong... It's just that his prediction has not come true yet
~~~
But let's consider something new, like say an 18MP camera with a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor that uses legacy (35mm) lenses with 44mm image circles, all in a relatively conventional DSLR body package... Now THAT might be something Pros would adopt!
-
Pros need files, much of the time, which are larger than 4/3rd cameras can provide, even at 8MP. The big stock agencies demand minimum 11MP files, and some like Getty 16MP minimum. Ad agencies need to be able to handle double page spreads and still allow for cropping. Most find that anything less than about 11-12MP starts to hurts when this is done.
Depending on how they price the DMC-L1 with Leica glass, I can see myself going for one of these. The 7.5MP initially concerned me but I think this is likely an interim step and later bodies/sensors will reach a sweet spot with the lenses within the coming years. Full-frame 35mm seems to be max-ing out already as we're reaching the inherent limitations of the format. For those without legacy glass (I got out of 35mm SLRs long ago) 4/3 is very attractive.
-
FourThirds easily outperform 35mm film in image quality, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is highly debatable. In my opinion, 35mm film exposed in my Hasselblad Xpan and scanned at 4800dpi is considerably more detailed than E-1 RAW.
But for printing up to A3+, and in pretty much any book or magazine format, it makes no practical difference.....except if I want to crop. One could say that the E-1 encourages you to get the framing right at capture time
-
People seem to get so much pleasure out of it when I'm wrong.
Michael, my intent wasn't to prove you wrong. Far from it. I was really interested to learn about your current stance on the platform, as you had very little belief in it in the past (and you did provide logical and quite convincing reasoning as to why). The fact that even critics like you now consider FourThirds to be a fine alternative means that the longevity of the platform is much less of an unknown as it used to be. It has become a valid option and is likely to remain so.
This is a change of status that I don't think needs to be understated. In fact, I would be very interested to read a more detailed analysis of the DSLR market and I really hope you'll publish such an article soon. Things have changed and are constantly changing.
By the way, I don't personally use FourThirds (I use Minolta 35mm film, Oly 1/1.8" and soon KM APS), but I very much appreciate what's going on with this platform. They seem to be on the right track. Just thought that needs to be clear
drm, if you factor in film grain, then FourThirds does easily outperform 35mm film in image quality. Detail in film is good, but the grain is unbearable in today's standards. You have to go to medium format to get anywhere near the complete silkiness of low-ISO digital.
Prog.
-
FourThirds easily outperform 35mm film in image quality,
That is highly debatable. In my opinion, 35mm film exposed in my Hasselblad Xpan and scanned at 4800dpi is considerably more detailed than E-1 RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Weren't people just complaining about quoting out of context?
I am fairly sure that Prognathous was referring to 35mm film used in the standard 24x36mm frame size, not the far larger Xpan panoramic frame size. What's more, 4/3 now has 8MP options, of noticeably higher resolution than the aging E-1's that you and I both stuck with! (Apart from my guess that the E-1 will be replaced this summer by something of about 11MP.)
-
The Olympus lenses are cheaper than Canon L, often faster and of comparible quality.
The problem is, there isn't a body for them at the moment. The E1 is good but dated and needs more MP and decent high ISO. If you are one of the pros polled by Sean Reid who said it was okay, please tell me your post processing technique
I was hoping that PMA would see them release a new pro body, however, the release of that IS Leica lens is exciting, lets hope for some telephoto ones soon, the 50-200 is heavy and often superfluous.
-
drm, if you factor in film grain, then FourThirds does easily outperform 35mm film in image quality. Detail in film is good, but the grain is unbearable in today's standards. You have to go to medium format to get anywhere near the complete silkiness of low-ISO digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Prog, you're certainly correct that to some extent grain is an issue, but I would put it like this: the smoothness of an 100 ISO E-1 file viewed at 100% (actual pixels) is roughly "equivalent" to a well-exposed slide viewed at 50%, although of course it depends on the film and the scanner. And tools like Noise Ninja are just as applicable to film as to digital. We get into subjective territory here, but I certainly feel I can print larger from 35mm than I can from the E-1. On the other hand, upsizing an E-1 file is far more realistic than upsizing a scan. I'm not arguing against the E-1 or 4/3rds - far from it - but I don't honestly agree with your "easily outperform" statement. Don't underestimate film, especially when it is behind a high quality lens....
-
I think quite a few of us are/were sceptical of Olympus and the 4/3 movement. There has been a tendency to think bigger sensors and more pixels is the way to go.
Regarding size, I do think that Olympus have achieved the aim, but not quite for the reason sometimes given. The bodies are small - compared to Nikon ones anyway - and at least one is weather sealed and seems built well. But normal lenses are not so compact. Where it scores is on long lenses. A 300mm F4 on the Oly equates to a 600mm F4 on a FF sensor. Now, the difference in size, weight and cost is significant. So in that sense, yes they have significantly reduced the size and weight. But whether or not that is significant, well we will see.
Leif
-
A 300mm F4 on the Oly equates to a 600mm F4 on a FF sensor. Now, the difference in size, weight and cost is significant.
Size yes, currently cost no. Oly glass is expensive, $6k for a 300 mm f2.8 lens is a little steep for me. When I am backpacking and already have 35 lbs in gear to carry, I am much happier carrying a 200 mm lens than a 400 mm lens. I think that gets overlooked when the issue of size comes up.
If someone would release a reasonably price 300 f4 for 4/3rds, I would be happy.
-
People seem to get so much pleasure out of it when I'm wrong.
So, yes I was wrong.
Feel better?
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, actually I do! Thanks Michael! You really are a good analyst of things, and a good sport on top of it all. All I have to say now, is stand by to be wrong again when Olympus and Panasonic come out with 12-16 MP cameras with those great lenses attached. I'm sure Oly / Panasonic 4/3 will never take over a significant share of the pro market, but the equipment itself will quite certainly become truly pro level, and have certain niches where its advantages will secure it a small but important place in the professional community.
Thanks for continuing such a great place for us to be!
Scott Adams
Northern CA
-
...But let's consider something new, like say an 18MP camera with a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor that uses legacy (35mm) lenses with 44mm image circles, all in a relatively conventional DSLR body package... Now THAT might be something Pros would adopt!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bingo!! I've been thinking about this very thing, although my idea was for a square 40x40mm sensor. I was going to post and ask if there was some technical reason it wouldn't work. There's no doubt in my mind that sensor prices will drop dramatically over the next 5-8 years. Pixel densities on high end cameras probably won't increase too much, but we should have bigger sensors before too much longer. How about an 80MP 60x60mm MF camera for less than the 5D costs now?? I'm predicting it's appearence at the 2012 PMA.
-
It'd be cool but then people would be crying and moaning about light falloff even more then they are now.
I think if you gave me a square sensor I'd want the ability to have a switchable mask in the viewfinder as a composition aid for those times you don't want to shoot square. Shouldn't be an issue though just stick a hideable grid feature in the viewfinder like some Nikons have.
A 40x40mm sensor would probably make for a $10,000 DSLR anytime in the next few years though.
With a sensor that size you could probably develop some really trick Tilt/Shift lenses.
-
Bingo!! I've been thinking about this very thing, although my idea was for a square 40x40mm sensor. I was going to post and ask if there was some technical reason it wouldn't work.
Unfortunately 40mm square WON'T work with 35mm full-frame lenses. These lenses have a 43mm image CIRCLE which will only accomodate a 30mm x 30mm square...
At 4:3 you end up with about a 26mmx34mm frame, and a bit more total area than 24x36. The 30mm square would generate a bit more total area available, but due to the crop required would give up more than what was gained. Hence, I feel the 4:3 is the best overall compromise...
If you want 40mm x40mm, you are best off with the current 4:3 39MP MF backs at 37x49. Since they are just under the full IC of the available MF lenses (roughly 75mm IC's are required for 645 glass and the 39MP back requires about 62mm of IC), they also make use of the sweetest 80% central imaging spot in the glass. Frankly, it's an almost ideal combination for direct digital capture given the current available selection of cameras and lenses...
However, in current DSLR form factor, they could give us a 43mm diameter circular sensor and let us choose our composition rectangle, but I think the viewfinder would get rather confusing
-
Unfortunately 40mm square WON'T work with 35mm full-frame lenses. These lenses have a 43mm image CIRCLE which will only accomodate a 30mm x 30mm square...
At 4:3 you end up with about a 26mmx34mm frame, and a bit more total area than 24x36. The 30mm square would generate a bit more total area available, but due to the crop required would give up more than what was gained. Hence, I feel the 4:3 is the best overall compromise...
If you want 40mm x40mm, you are best off with the current 4:3 39MP MF backs at 37x49. Since they are just under the full IC of the available MF lenses (roughly 75mm IC's are required for 645 glass and the 39MP back requires about 62mm of IC), they also make use of the sweetest 80% central imaging spot in the glass. Frankly, it's an almost ideal combination for direct digital capture given the current available selection of cameras and lenses...
However, in current DSLR form factor, they could give us a 43mm diameter circular sensor and let us choose our composition rectangle, but I think the viewfinder would get rather confusing
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack, had that thought too (the 43mm circular sensor) but the realities of IC manufacturing mean that sensors are going to be rectangular. I do realize that the corners on a 40x40 sensor wouldn't be usable, was thinking the 40x40 would be a pro camera, sold to people who understood that they'd have to crop their image appropriately.
I'd love to not have to be rotating the camera for vertical shots.
-
was thinking the 40x40 would be a pro camera, sold to people who understood that they'd have to crop their image appropriately.
I'd love to not have to be rotating the camera for vertical shots.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay, understand what you meant now
-
I'm still not sold on 4/3s, but it has little do with image quality. I currently use an APS-C camera for anything I intend to print big and I recently got a used Panasonic LC-1 for street shooting (I have plenty of opinions about that camera, but that's material for another thread...). I like the LC-1/Digilux2's manual controls and I'm glad to see that the new Panasonic DSLR shares a lot of that heritage.
The L1 would appeal to me if I liked the lenses available for it. But I don't. I'm NOT looking to replace my APS-C camera or Nikon glass. I'm happy with what those do for me. I WOULD go for a 4/3s sensor with the L1's body design and a few high quality primes (how about a normal and a moderate wide?). That would put the inherent advantages of the smaller sensor to good use (small, light bodies with small, light lenses). If Olympus or Leica were to ship some fast primes in 4/3s format, I'd definitely be interested, but the Leica zoom that was just introduced is not my idea of an unobstrusive casual/street lens.
--
Daniel Bell
-
If someone would release a reasonably price 300 f4 for 4/3rds, I would be happy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sigma has made a stab at filling the less expensive super-telephoto niche by offering their "all-in-one" 50-500mm f/4-6.3 in 4/3 mount. (That's a 100-1000mm, f/8-12.6 35mm equivalent, according to my way of comparing). I wonder if it has enough resolution for 4/3 pixels which are as small as 5.3 microns now, and will probably be under 5 microns later this year.
However, for those who crave primes other than (1) telephotos faster than any zoom available at the same focal length, (2) macros, and (3) fisheyes, look elsewhere. Almost no-one is introducing new prime lenses outside those three categories any more, so the best bet is a system that already has the ones you need, left-over from the 35mm film era.
Pentax is a bit of an exception on DSLR primes, with several small, light, not-so-fast "DA" primes released or planned for its DSLRs: 21/3.2, 40/2.8, 70/2.4, all "pancakes".
-
FourThirds easily outperform 35mm film in image quality
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=59207\")
That is highly debatable. In my opinion, 35mm film exposed in my Hasselblad Xpan and scanned at 4800dpi is considerably more detailed than E-1 RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't found FourThirds to "easily outperform 35mm film". The 5 or 8 mp incarnations of the FourThirds systems don't measure up to film scanned at even 4000 dpi. It's no contest with fine grained 100 ISO and lower film. Further the detail and shapness attainable with the XPan (36x24) or similar rangefinders like Leica and Contax G2, is far and away above what can be had with ANY 6-8 mp camera. Grain, insignificant at E-1 5 mp resolutions levels, can be handled very effectively at higher resolution levels (and print sizes) with recent grain reduction software (Neat Image, Noise Ninja -- see for example: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/ndq.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/ndq.shtml[/url] ). Printed 12x18 images from good film are much more detailed than the E-1 can produce.
Sorry. There is a lot of hype out there and a lot of people that have bought into the hype but, properly handled, you need a good 10-12 mp sensor to beat a good fine grained film. 400 speed and faster film are less competitive - but are certainly competitive at the 8mp level. Digital or FourThirds wins at convenience, speed, and when volume is a consideration, but current incarnations of the FourThirds do not outperform film for image quality (I would include the 6-8mp APS-c sensor cameras in that statement as well).
But I will admit that for most people who print no larger than 11x14 it doesn't make much of a difference.
That's my experience. Others may see things differently, but I wonder what they are actually looking at.
-
However, for those who crave primes other than (1) telephotos faster than any zoom available at the same focal length, (2) macros, and (3) fisheyes, look elsewhere. Almost no-one is introducing new prime lenses outside those three categories any more, so the best bet is a system that already has the ones you need, left-over from the 35mm film era.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right, and there are two problems with this: there may not be lenses available in the focal lengths you need (particularly problematic with wide angles) and the various adapters needed to mount those lenses on 4/3s bodies often leave you without full functionality. I could live with manual focusing, but I'd not want to be limited to stopped-down metering. The lenses I want to use exist for 35mm and APS-C systems; I'd need them to be available for 4/3s before I'd seriously consider it.
--
Daniel Bell
-
For the benefit of Let Biogons be Biogons and others, I HAVE seen A3 prints (and larger) done from images captured with a Canon 20D and L lenses that outperform ASA 100 colour film anyday - in respect of clarity, cleanliness and visible image detail. Much depends on post-processing skill.
-
Sigma has made a stab at filling the less expensive super-telephoto niche by offering their "all-in-one" 50-500mm f/4-6.3 in 4/3 mount. (That's a 100-1000mm, f/8-12.6 35mm equivalent, according to my way of comparing). I wonder if it has enough resolution for 4/3 pixels which are as small as 5.3 microns now, and will probably be under 5 microns later this year.
I am thinking of buying one of those. I'm less concerned about resolution than I am about autofocus with a 6.3 max aperture. A 300 mm f4 and a 1.4 tc would be almost as much reach, and lighter. I think the Bigma is worth a look though.
-
I'm less concerned about resolution than I am about autofocus with a 6.3 max aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it is safe, if marginal. Many SLR's (including my E-1) list f/5.6 as the highest minimum f-stop a lens must have in order for AF to work, but in fact there are a number of f/6.3 zooms out there that just slip under the wire. It is only 1/6th of a stop slower!
There is already one f/6.3 zoom for 4/3, the Olympus 18-180 f/3.5-6.3 (which is possibly a rebadged Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 with more honest focal lengths!), so you could check for reports of AF problems with that lens; I have seen no complaints in the forums I read.
-
I am thinking of buying one of those. I'm less concerned about resolution than I am about autofocus with a 6.3 max aperture. A 300 mm f4 and a 1.4 tc would be almost as much reach, and lighter. I think the Bigma is worth a look though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From what I've heard, the Bigma is acctually a quite good lens. There are lots of wildlife guys who swear by it.
-
Not sure why Michael would retract his original statement, based on a few sigma lenses, and an overpriced pannie product!
I have to say that in this game if anything is to be learnt its that you dont mess with formats...aka APS film, 110 film...all dead...
4/3 is doomed, it may wriggle and moan a bit, sure its had a minor improvement, but this patient is in intensive care...he may have opened his eyes..but thats it!
4 years ago 4/3 looked ok, now even some say APS-C is on a limited time scale..who knows..
I think Olympus made a huge mistake going 4/3, I dont care for the aspect ratio a whole lot, though sometimes its ok (for non landscapes), leaving that aside, you have a situation where Olympus users were denied affordable lenses (tamron etc), by ignoring the main market..
4/3 is the format that could live as a super budget option, problem is its in denial, so are Olympus, and those viewfinders are not too great either! Gotta be said...
Why pay more for less???
-
Barry, may I suggest you visit dpreview forums? The online bar-room brawl that you apparently seek are more available over there.
-
I guess it's a deviant view, but I'm interested in Olympus, etc., to the extent that I'm attracted to the 4:3 aspect ratio itself.
A 2:3 aspect ratio involves the eye in a more dynamic sweeping motion (initially L-R, because of our reading habits); 6x6 keeps the eye moving along lines of tension from center to periphery & back. 4.5x6 or 4:3 lives in-between.
Even if we have a cropping habit, we nevertheless program ourselves to anticipate the proportions we'll see through the viewfinder - a feedback loop that influences how we see the rectangles that become our photographs. Sometime I'll get around to trying 4:3 to see if produces an interesting change of perception for me.
-
Barry, may I suggest you visit dpreview forums? The online bar-room brawl that you apparently seek are more available over there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I fail to see why you feel its important to mention this?
Its a matter of opinion nothing else, of course if you have Olympus stuff then fair enough. I dont desire the death of any format, but in this case it would have made more sense to follow the market as such. No bar room brawls needed. Unless of course you dont like freedom of speech.