Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Micro 4/3  (Read 17450 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Micro 4/3
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2008, 04:49:25 pm »

Quote
There are two cases: 1)If you want top-end image quality, you use a FF DSLR, or, if you can afford it, and you don't need the flexibility of a DSLR, you use a MF system. 2) If you don't need top-end quality, you can get *very good* quality from cameras like the G9 or any number of other super-zooms ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This strikes me as a false dichotomy, assuming that there is no market for any middle ground between the vastly different level of size, cost and image quality of 35mm vs small sensor compacts.
Surely the roughly four times better high ISO potential of 4/3 vs G9 and the flexibility of interchangeable lenses is worth something to many photographers who are on the other hand not interested in anything close to the $3,000 and up price range of 35mm format DSLR's.

Quote
I am simply suggesting that you might not want to pay near-FF prices for a  system that does not provide FF quality ... (4/3 lenses can't be adopted to FF.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But as I already pointed out, no-one has to pay even vaguely near-FF prices for 4/3, and in particular this is likely to be true of the entry-level oriented Micro 4/3.  Are you assuming a roughly five-fold drop from the lowest ever new FF model pricing (D700, $3000) to roughly match mainstream 4/3 prices (starting at $440 for the E-420 body, $530 with lens)?

The better question is how many people will be interested in paying about $500 or less for a Micro 4/3 body and lens kit, not much different than the prices of the Canon G9 and Nikon P6000 with their 1/1.7" sensors.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Micro 4/3
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2008, 05:06:51 pm »

I guess the reason for the discussion is kind of a Consumer Reports thing -- which buy is the best for the money, and which would best fit into a long-term system. (I'm assuming here that most people who read the LL are at least "interested" photographers, rather than snapshot enthusiasts.)

It is possible, even likely, that for some people, a 4/3 or Micro 4/3 system is perfect -- exactly what they want in quality, price, handling, and so on. But I would say that the people for whom it is perfect are relatively few -- a much larger number who might consider 4/3 would also be perfectly happy with any one of a very wide range of other cameras.

The argument for going to that wider range is that it either costs less (P&S) or leaves an opening for a more extensive, higher quality system in the future, that can be bought piece-by-piece. And BJL, I would point out that there are Nikon APS-C kits for the D60 with a 18-55 VR kit lens that sell for $600 on Amazon (I'm sure Canon has the equivalent.) With the D60, you can buy all kinds of Nikon accessories, including other lenses, that work on a FF system.

So, as I said, I'm sure that for some people, the Olympus 4/3 is perfect and that's what they should probably buy. But if you want an opening up, you won't get it with 4/3. And I have the feeling that ultimately, 4/3 is going to be a dead-end; it's going to be the Olympus Pen-F of the 21st century.

JC
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Micro 4/3
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2008, 06:02:09 pm »

It really comes down to how big an image do you need?  If the format in question gets you to that image size then the format is viable.  If it has advantages beyond that then it should thrive.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Micro 4/3
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2008, 05:12:38 am »

Maybe the sales will be generated by counter clerks dealing with less informed customers. I have no beef with ANY format, that´s a choice for the buyer, but I do feel that for anyone who has a better idea of the game, buying small is never going to be the best buy. However, those who collect cameras might be, as Ruskin could have said, that manufacturer´s lawful prey.

My feeling is that people who are into photography buy to the level their finances will allow; those who don´t give a hoot (and why sould they?) buy what looks pretty or is simply convenient. Either way, it´s their money.

But that does not guarantee the success or otherwise of a format and even brands with a fanatical fan-base have problems: Leica´s M digi comes to mind.

Rob C

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Micro 4/3
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2008, 09:07:59 am »

Quote
It really comes down to how big an image do you need?  If the format in question gets you to that image size then the format is viable.  If it has advantages beyond that then it should thrive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Last year I found my wife's old olympus om1.  It was absolutely tiny compared to the current 35mm dslrs like Nikon and Canon.



It was a great camera, small, manual, kind of the Leica of reflex 35mm.

How Olympus went from that to their current 4:3's or whatever they call it is really beyond me.

Are sensors really that expensive, because other than Canon and Nikon there is no full frame 35mm cameras, with the only alternative to size is some kind of cropped down sensor.

I don't get it, but I guess Olympus is still trying for the smaller nitche market.  It would be so much more inviting if it was a manual FF camera, that just worked like the om1.



JR
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Micro 4/3
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2008, 11:38:29 am »

I got the impression that Olympus, with the introduction of the 4/3rds system, were capitalizing on their excellent lens technology and expertise, and marrying that to an aspect ratio which many photographers find more useful than 35mm's 3:2 and which requires a smaller image circle which in turn lends itself to the design of a higher resolving lens.

I get the impression that Zuiko 4/3rds lenses actually are sharper than 35mm lenses. I recall reading a report from NASA who had tested the Zuiko 300/2.8 and found it to be the sharpest lens they'd ever tested. Since MTF testing seems to have gone out of fashion, it's difficult to be sure how the lens compares with the Canon 300/2.8, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Zuiko 300mm has a higher MTF response at any particular frequency you care to compare.

A 35mm APS-C aspect ratio, even if it were the same height as the Olympus 4/3rds, (13mm instead of the 14.8mm of the 450D) would require a lens with a bigger image circle. The closer you get to a square format, the smaller the image circle required and the greater the potential for the design of a higher resolving lens, in terms of lp/mm rather than picture height.

The greater resolution of the Zuiko lenses should compensate for the smaller sensor area, resulting in a total picture resolution which is roughly the equal of the APS-C format, provided the pixel count is sufficient.

I think Olympus have been lagging behind slightly in pixel count and also in low noise at high ISO.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Micro 4/3
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2008, 04:13:52 pm »

I used to be an OM owner, great cameras. This was Olympus at their best.

I have not had the same level of confidence in them since then. They pretty much ignored AF SLR film cameras, and lost a ton of serious users, though did not bad with their 35mm compacts and bridge cameras.

Olympus digital has been interesting, but not for me. Afraid the 4/3 fear factor caught hold of me, love their optics though..very nice..

My own personal feeling is that Olympus should just do what they used to do best, making really good solid cameras, in APS and FF at some point. The entire 4/3 road looks very limited in the long term. This appears to be another attempt to steer away from fighting it out with the big boys, and just doing another niche market. I admire their guts, but I still feel the same way about 4/3 as I did APS film.

I just don't want to get involved with it!
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Micro 4/3
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2008, 09:39:30 pm »

Quote
My own personal feeling is that Olympus should just do what they used to do best, making really good solid cameras, in APS and FF at some point. The entire 4/3 road looks very limited in the long term. This appears to be another attempt to steer away from fighting it out with the big boys, and just doing another niche market. I admire their guts, but I still feel the same way about 4/3 as I did APS film.

I just don't want to get involved with it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At least they are offering the consumer a different choice instead of more of the same. Medium Format and MFDB users seem to appreciate the 4/3rds aspect ratio more than 35mm's. Even in the old days of film, the 6x9cm format was a rarity. Most of the other formats were closer to a 4:3 aspect ratio (6x4.5cm, 6x7cm, 6x6cm etc).

I've always felt that the 4/3rds concept was sound but its implementation flawed. As John Camp has mentioned, with digital you not only need good lenses but a good sensor.

Consider the the very first 4/3rds camera, the E-1. The sensor was a noisy 5mp CCD. Image quality above ISO 200 was clearly much noisier than both the 6mp Canon (10D) and the then current Nikon APS-C format, and resolution, despite the superior Zuiko lenses also appeared to be slightly worse. In addition, the Zuiko lenses had no image stabilisation and the body in the first couple of models no anti-shake sensor. That never made much sense to me.

Olympus has continued to improve subsequent models, but the weight advantage compared with APS-C, does not seem substantial enough to me. The Micro 4/3rds system could change all that, providing the consumer with the option of roughly APS-C image quality and a substantial reduction in bulk and weight.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Micro 4/3
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2008, 01:24:01 pm »

Quote
And BJL, I would point out that there are Nikon APS-C kits for the D60 with a 18-55 VR kit lens that sell for $600 on Amazon (I'm sure Canon has the equivalent.) With the D60, you can buy all kinds of Nikon accessories, including other lenses, that work on a FF system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what you are saying is that for about the same price as a 4/3 kit, one can get a DX (not "FF") kit, offering some degree of upward compatability with 35mm format. Unfortunately, actually getting to FF 35mm costs at least $3000 for the body alone, and that DX lens must be replaced too, so no part of that D60+18-55 DX VR kit will survive the transition to a Full Frame 35mm format system except the neck strap. Neither probably would the lenses that are most often added to such a DX kit, since they are predominately "digital format only": telephoto zooms starting at 55mm or less rather then 70mm or more to avoid a focal length gap, and wide angle lenses.

I am not persuaded that such a bumpy and expensive upgrade path is much of a factor in customer choice of a mainstream priced SLR (or other interchangeable lens) camera kit; my guess instead is that far more short-term considerations often dominate, with kit size and weight a significant one even for people choosing an interchangeable lens system.

I will not pretend to be able to predict success or failure of new products of which we so far have only very sketchy details, but I think that Ray has got the essence of it with his talk of "offering the consumer a different choice". If you are not Canon or Nikon, you have little chance of matching that big two head on in competition for market share and the related economies of scale, so the best option is to offer a somewhat different product. Medium format and rangefinders have survived by being sufficiently different from 35mm format SLR's, ironically protected by having sales levels too low for Canon or Nikon to bother investing in those sectors.

Perhaps a digital update of the "rangefinder difference" will find a place: a system of small lenses and bodies, with wide angle designs free from the large minimum back-focus distance of an SLR, and the near silent operation of a camera with no mirror slap ... but without the rangefinder's limited telephoto range, and with a "WYSIWYG" viewfinder that potentially shows very accurately what the sensor is seeing, because it gets its image from the sensor.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 01:27:28 pm by BJL »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up