So who was 4/3 originally aimed at?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 29,248
Like?
Re: So who was 4/3 originally aimed at? - Original press release
In reply to Big Ga, 9 months ago

Big Ga wrote:

rovingtim wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

iii) Related to (ii) they really failed to give options which took advantage of the size and weight advantage. The first several FT DSLRs were as large or larger than the competition, right up until the D400.

This may not have been so much of a problem if the bodies were competitive, but they were not.

Well, to be fair, they were competitive in a lot of ways. But also to be fair, the one or two bits that were behind were in key areas (and hence its easy to forget the good bits!)

The same with the lenses.

It didn't help that Olympus was misrepresenting the lenses -- ie. a 150mm f2 = 300mm f2 -- sparking the 'equivalency wars'.

Was it Olympus themselves that were doing this though? or was it the users?

I think it was Olympus. This is from the original blurb on this:

The diagonal size of the 4/3-type image sensor is about half that of a 35mm film sensor. This means that the focal distance required to obtain a given angle of view is half that needed for a 35mm film camera. As a result, the optical system can be made much smaller. Moreover, because the effective aperture can be reduced without reducing brightness, the Four Thirds system makes it possible to design much brighter lenses. Thanks to this compatibility between compact size and large aperture, the potential for evolution of lenses is virtually unlimited.In other words, the adoption of the 4/3-type image sensor has made it possible to develop lenses that not only offer performance that surpasses almost anything achieved with traditional lenses, but are also compact and highly mobile. For example, a Four Thirds telescopic lens equivalent to a 35mm 300mm lens can be implemented with a focal length of 150mm, and it can also offer wide aperture and high brightness corresponding to F2.0 while the maximum brightness available with a traditional lens was F2.8.

You can see why it is has been such a live topic here. Essentially, many people believed Olympus and Olympus was lying. Given the management of Olympus at the time, we probably wouldn't be surprised. They thought nothing of offering people a free lunch.

I recall some lenses like the 70-300 having stickers on them saying 140-600mm equivalent, but I'm not sure it they also kept the same aperture. Or are you saying that by omitting the 'equivalency' aperture, this was deception itself?

It was deception itself, looking at the above.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow