Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: ricciardi on August 05, 2008, 05:53:05 pm
-
Michael.
Just want to give you my personal perspective on the 4/3.
You know, I had a problem in my right hand. To cut the story short, I can't hold a 1D/70-200 for a long time 'cause my hands hurt.
Now, that is a problem. How can one pursue a passion for photography with such issues?
Well, the 4/3 system helped me. I can hold a 520/50-200 but it's hard to hold a Rebel/70-200.
I reckon the difference is not much when you look at the numbers. But in real life, that's what keeps me shooting.
I'll probably be the first in line to buy this new micro 4/3.
Cheers,
Nelson
-
This is an all new system.
I think it will be a success.
The problem is with the "old" 4/3 system.
It was clear where the problem was:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/L...rspective.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Leica-M8-Perspective.shtml)
R.
-
I don't understand the attitude *AGAINST* the micro 4/3 format. Aren't options always good? Doesn't a rising tide raise all boats?
This is like saying that the industry has "arrived" and no new development is necessary. Just maybe Olympus will bring something to the table that the DP1 hasn't. Just maybe, this will make a compelling upgrade to the Canon G9. I haven't seen too many SLR lenses attached to the G9 or DP1 yet.
Maybe the problem is that the m4/3 format doesn't take Nikkor or Canon lenses. When Nikon or Canon introduce their micro format, we'll be sure to hear an entirely new story. We've been there before with dust-removal, live-view, lenses optimized for digital sensors....
I guess none of those advances matter until Nikon or Canon does it.
-
Where is the attitude against this? I'm unable to locate any particularly critical threads. Could you post a link?
-
Where is the attitude against this? I'm unable to locate any particularly critical threads. Could you post a link?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael wrote in his "What's New":
Given that we've now started to see cameras with APS-C sized sensors in small form factors (the Sigma DP-1 is just the first of many to come) and we've seen with the Leica M8 that shallow lens-to-sensor distances are possible due to advances in micro-lens design, it again seems to me that Four Thirds simply doesn't offer any really compelling advantages. I could be wrong though – it wouldn't be the first time.
ken
-
Where is the attitude against this? I'm unable to locate any particularly critical threads. Could you post a link?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=213486\")
For pessimism about Micro Four Thirds, try the What's New section of this site where Michael says
Given that we've now started to see cameras with APS-C sized sensors in small form factors (the Sigma DP-1 is just the first of many to come) and we've seen with the Leica M8 that shallow lens-to-sensor distances are possible due to advances in micro-lens design, it again seems to me that Four Thirds simply doesn't offer any really compelling advantages. I could be wrong though – it wouldn't be the first time.
or some forum posts like [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27067&view=findpost&p=213156]Dale Cotton's[/url] and others in that thread.
But overall, comments on MFT here at LL are a fairly reasonable mix of pro and con, while the mindless trash-talk is instead abundant at that other site!
For now, I view MFT as offering the best "bigger sensor compact" option announced so far, with the somewhat smaller format compared to EF-S or DX and the related shorter focal lengths being more an asset than a liability in the intended "compact" market. Of course for me MFT has the side benefit of being able to use my existing lenses on it, so I would not need all new lenses; maybe just a small standard zoom and or pancake prime.
-
The 4/3rds system has been a designated whipping-boy from the day it was introduced, for no reason I can discern. It's principle problem is that it has not delivered significantly smaller equipment than the smallest 35mm dslrs.
The notion of truly compact interchangeable lens cameras delivering the full 4/3rds sensor-size and quality is really exciting. As I noted in my review of the Canon G9, smaller size cameras can offer significant creative advantages, limited only by their small sensor size.
To me, the micro 4/3rds may be just the right compromise if **IF** the viewfinders are truly useable.
It will be interesting.
As for the comment that it's a shame they don't take Canon or Nikon glass, frankly many would say that Olympus has always matched or bettered these competitors.
- N.
-
Michael wrote in his "What's New":
Given that we've now started to see cameras with APS-C sized sensors in small form factors (the Sigma DP-1 is just the first of many to come) and we've seen with the Leica M8 that shallow lens-to-sensor distances are possible due to advances in micro-lens design, it again seems to me that Four Thirds simply doesn't offer any really compelling advantages. I could be wrong though – it wouldn't be the first time.
ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is that four thirds or micro four thirds? I read it as being four thirds.
-
But overall, comments on MFT here at LL are a fairly reasonable mix of pro and con, while the mindless trash-talk is instead abundant at that other site!
For now, I view MFT as offering the best "bigger sensor compact" option announced so far, with the somewhat smaller format compared to EF-S or DX and the related shorter focal lengths being more an asset than a liability in the intended "compact" market. Of course for me MFT has the side benefit of being able to use my existing lenses on it, so I would not need all new lenses; maybe just a small standard zoom and or pancake prime.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I want an e-420 mostly for the tiny kit lens. (Not the pancake prime. The other one.) i'll hang out to see what they do with m43.
-
It's principle problem is that it has not delivered significantly smaller equipment than the smallest 35mm dslrs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ndevlin,
What I tried to imply, in my original post, was that at least in my case, the smaller and lighter Olympus system IS a reality and is keeping me shooting.
And I tried the Rebel with 70-200. Too heavy.
A E-520 with 50-200 works.
So, at least in my case, the 4/3 is a blessing. It would be either the Olympus or a Compact (G9 probably). Or a hand surgery.
-
Ndevlin,
What I tried to imply, in my original post, was that at least in my case, the smaller and lighter Olympus system IS a reality and is keeping me shooting.
And I tried the Rebel with 70-200. Too heavy.
A E-520 with 50-200 works.
So, at least in my case, the 4/3 is a blessing. It would be either the Olympus or a Compact (G9 probably). Or a hand surgery.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No offense, but you're not going to buy enough 4/3 equipment to sustain the market.
The essential problem with 4/3 involves resolution and sensor/pixel size which, so far, have been pretty much unbeatable. Bigger sensor, more and bigger pixels equals better quality...and it really doesn't matter how good the Olympus lenses are. We're no longer using film, where everybody had the same sensor, so that lenses were *the* critical element in the system. Now, sensors are just as important. So if you want the best quality in 35mm-sized equipment (without going to the outrageously expensive and only marginally better MF gear), then you go with full-frame gear, or, at least, with a system that could accommodate FF gear eventually, as with Pentax or Leica. 4/3 is designed *not* to accommodate FF sensors. If you don't need the resolution or quality of 35mm gear, then why pay near-FF price for an Olympus, when you can get such good-quality cameras as the G9, or the many super zooms, which are both smaller and cheaper?
JC
-
Ndevlin,
What I tried to imply, in my original post, was that at least in my case, the smaller and lighter Olympus system IS a reality and is keeping me shooting.
And I tried the Rebel with 70-200. Too heavy.
A E-520 with 50-200 works.
So, at least in my case, the 4/3 is a blessing. It would be either the Olympus or a Compact (G9 probably). Or a hand surgery.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you noticed that much difference between 4/3rds and, say, a Rebel with a small lens, you'd probably be in the minority (though I don't discount your experience at all). Ironically, Olympus has released some amazing lenses for the system, but they are huge! (and hugely costly).
If they can really drop the lens-size but provide high ISO performance that is scaleably comparable to a G9, they'd really have something.
As for price, I don't think that will be that much of an obstacle to market share if the product is really unique and powerful. I, personally, would pay a LOT for a small, high-ISO competent, stabilized, interchangeable lens system, and i suspect many others will, too.
For the vast majority of photographic applications one does not need anything approaching the current top-end of 35mm dslrs.
- N.
-
For the vast majority of photographic applications one does not need anything approaching the current top-end of 35mm dslrs.
- N.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So someone, somewhere, is going to spend good money in the understanding that his photography is never going to amount to much "in the majority of his photographic applications"?
Clearly a case of more money than sense. Or an undernourished ego; here, share some of mine...!
Rob C
-
I tried the oly 410e, and it was not a bad deal with the two lens (slow but good for the money). However, it was too small for my grip and I returned it a week later and upgraded to an EOS 40D. Only to find out later that my wife wanted it. However, she decided to keep her G5 cause its fits in her handbag. So, it looks likes I'll have some new toys to consider by christmas.
In fact, I wouldn't mind having one myself (almost picked up a G9), to for the family trips where a 40D would get in the way. It's not a replacement, it's just another choice for the consumer.
-Pete
-
I for one am very interested in the micro-4/3, for a small carry-around type camera/system. For me, this is assuming:
Good optics
Good ergonomics
A good EVF
Not loading the puppy with a clutter of "scene modes", etc.
It may end up being among the first steps (the other being the DP-1)in a major format/hardware realignment.
For instance, Nikon. What if they are thinking:
Future DSLR w/optical view finders and Live view, but FF.
DX lenses will not be orphaned, rather they will form the initial lense base for a future line of DX sensor EVF cameras?
Maybe all DX/APS-whatever cropped sensors will migrate down so to speak, with EVF and video added, "replacing" the P&S/bridges, with cellphone camera functions chewing their way up from the bottom.
Do not know, just a speculatin'
-
A good EVF
So far as I know only the Konica Minolta Dimage A2 has had a decent EVF and that one was as silly laggy as everyone elses. I hope they make one but the track record for the industry in this regard is pretty poor.
-
No offense, but you're not going to buy enough 4/3 equipment to sustain the market.
The essential problem with 4/3 involves resolution and sensor/pixel size which, so far, have been pretty much unbeatable. Bigger sensor, more and bigger pixels equals better quality...and it really doesn't matter how good the Olympus lenses are. We're no longer using film, where everybody had the same sensor, so that lenses were *the* critical element in the system. Now, sensors are just as important. So if you want the best quality in 35mm-sized equipment (without going to the outrageously expensive and only marginally better MF gear), then you go with full-frame gear, or, at least, with a system that could accommodate FF gear eventually, as with Pentax or Leica. 4/3 is designed *not* to accommodate FF sensors. If you don't need the resolution or quality of 35mm gear, then why pay near-FF price for an Olympus, when you can get such good-quality cameras as the G9, or the many super zooms, which are both smaller and cheaper?
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Honestly, I'm confused. You start out talking about bigger sensor equals better quality, then you end up praising the G9 which has far less than 25% the surface area of a 4/3 sensor.
I don't agree at all that you have to go to FF 35mm to get "quality" images. Although it is true that bigger pixels will be quieter than small pixels, the issue of "fill-factor" still exists. Also, there is more on-sensor noise-removal/reduction and other advances in in-camera image-processing going on to choke a horse. Look at how noisy the Canon 10D looks now. A few years ago, it was the cat's meow in ultra-quiet sensors. Now, the G9 with a sensor 1/6 the size is rivaling it or exceeding it in quality. At what point have we hit the point of diminishing returns? At what point do we recognize that the sliding scale of "image quality" is just a means of getting us to part with our money for new equipment?
Of course, we're hanging out on the website of the poster-child of "Seekers of the Holy Grail." When was the last time we've seen Michael say "this sensor/back is now sufficient". I wonder if he even has his G9 anymore--of which he praised to the point of near embarrasement.
Personally, I am very interested in the micro 4/3 for more reasons than I could outline here in a few moments. When you consider that 95% of my images are cropped to 5x7 or 4x5 ratios, an APS-C or even FF 35mm frame is heavily wasted. I have further discovered that DoF and Bokeh issues are MORE an issue of lens design than "format". Maybe that's why I still prefer to use 30 year old lenses on my DSLR. (yes, my entire stable of FF 35mm lenses are used on my 4/3 camera)
Granted, I am still saddened that Olympus did not persue FF-35mm digital. That has been a thorn of contention for me, but the fact is, that I can count on less than a full hand of fingers the number of images not adequately fulfilled because the sensor was only 4/3. No more than TWO images per year. But that's me, and if I think I want FF-35mm for an image, I happen to actually use the ultimate 35mm film-camera--an OM-4T. (yes, I am biased). But that's what professionals do--they use the proper tool for a job and no more. No need to haul out the 8x10 field camera to do a grip-n-grin for the newspaper.
As innovative as Olympus has been through the decades, and with the exceptional lens quality they are known for, I can't imagine that Nikon and Canon will stay quiet for long. We've been crying for a camera of this category for years. The bridge cameras got really close before they ALL disappeared from the marketplace. The Konica-Minolta really ending up being best-of-class followed very closely by the Olympus C8080. Now, nothing.
More power to Olympus for taking the risk. Had they not, we wouldn't have had the Pen series, the OM-series, which were absolutely tiny compared to every other DSLR at the time, the XA, and of course, they pioneered the concept of the bridge camera or "all-in-one" camera.
But none of these advancements matter not to the modern armchair photographers who compare which is "best" based totally on the noise-comparison and res-charts published on DPR. But ask these same people how a camera will capture the colors of an African Violet??? Do these same poeple know what the actual wavelength sensitivity curves are for a given camera? Do they realize that some cameras cannot capture the color purple at all--except for the purple rendered in pigment or dye on a MacBeth colorchecker?
No, it's all resolution and high-iso sensitivity. Yes, ONLY Full Frame 35mm will deliver the "best". That's it--everything else is an "also-ran".
Meanwhile, ever since day one of digital, it has been generally accepted that with rare exception, Olympus has not only the best skintones and image-color, but the best overall lenses. Even the least-expensive kit lenses are excellent performers. Can the same be said of the other manufacturers?
Excuse the rant--this is NOT aimed at you, John. I know my fanboyism is showing, but I can give you a whole list of areas where Olympus DSLR products stink, but strangely enough, not in the areas that you'd assume.
Ken
-
If you don't need the resolution or quality of 35mm gear, then why pay near-FF price for an Olympus, when you can get such good-quality cameras as the G9, or the many super zooms, which are both smaller and cheaper?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apart from the inconsistency of appealing to the IQ advantage of 35mm over 4/3 and then ignoring the IQ advantage of 4/3 over cameras like the G9 and super zooms (there is a similar ratio of sensor size in each case), what is the basis for the idea of near-FF price for 4/3 or Micro 4/3?
The new wave of 35mm format DSLR's are so far priced at $3,000; the Olympus E-420 is $440, and an entry level Micro 4/3 body is likely to be priced a bit lower, given the "digicam step-up" market that is mainly targeted.
By the way, the price ratio betwen 35mm and smaller DSLR formats has risen over the years.
-
BJL, Image66, there's nothing inconsistent with what I wrote. 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; or from the major companies' down-market cameras like Nikon's D60, which is cheap, light, uses an APS sensor, and can use FF-usable lenses if you wish to buy them -- and then, if you upgrade to FF, you don't have to buy an entirely new system.
I am simply suggesting that you might not want to pay near-FF prices for a system that does not provide FF quality, and really has no opening to do so in the future (4/3 lenses can't be adopted to FF.) Olympus and other 4/3 manufacturers will be increasingly squeezed by the advancing quality of the P&S cameras (and there are rumors that both Canon and Nikon are working on APS-C P&S's), and by the increasing quality of DSLRs, which they won't be able to match.
Olympus lenses are second to none. The problem is that that the sensor won't be able to compete. In the old days, *the* critical component for any system was the lens, because the camera was just a light-tight box and all the sensors were standardized and came from Kodak or Fuji, etc. That's no longer true; now, I'd argue, the sensor is *more* important than the lenses, because the lenses have converged in quality, while the sensors have not.
JC
-
The ongoing debates about the viability of 4/3 puzzle me. There is not much difference in physical size between the 4/3 and APS-C sensors. The models compete in the APS-C price realm, so why compare to FF? Why compare to P&S? If Olympus had decided to build a system based on APS-C sensors, would we be having these discussions?
And yes, Olympus may never build an FF system. They may not build a medium format system either. So what? That only matters to people who want those things.
Occasionally I read comments that whatever improvement that 4/3 makes to their sensors can also be made to APS-C sensors. Yes, that's undoubtedlly true. But when Pentax makes improvements to an APS-C sensor camera I don't recall reading a criticism of that, that other makers will do the same. Technology developments leapfrog each other all the time. (IBM and DEC used to be really important in the computer world.)
There seem to be high-ISO noise and DR issues with the current selection of 4/3s cameras, when compared to some APS-C cameras. This may be a valid criticism of the current crop of Panasonic 4/3 chips. They will either improve them to match the performance of the others or they won't, or maybe even make them better than the others; time will tell. What does that have to do with the format?
Besides, the differences in performance seem to be small, in the sense that they affect a minority of shooting situations, so it seems to me that the worry over these problems is out of proportion to their real world importance. And those kinds of performance differences resolve themselves in retail price differences. It seems to me that the system provides sufficient performance for a lot of users. Why does it need do anything else?
It may also be true that not all of the 4/3s hype over the small size of body and lenses has come to pass, although the 410 is Pentax MX size and relatively small lenses do provide long reach for the money. But so what? Why is it so important to call to task the claims of the Olympus marketing department? They're not the first to have exaggerated.
I don't have an axe to grind, I own no stock in Olympus. I happen to own an E-1 with the 70-300, but I own other gear too and if Oly terminated their 4/3 involvement, it wouldn't bother me much. I don't just get all the hand-wringing.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Olympus_OM-1.jpg/200px-Olympus_OM-1.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.