Former Olympus Chairman and President, and six others arrested over scandal

Bayer or not, sensor technology is already here... but patents, and many other business reasons will not allow a FT sensor to have all these technology yet. But it will get there, soon.

I agree. FT is about half frame of the old 35mm. A 16MP FT sensor was just announced for the E-M5 and should about equal a normal 35mm slide film like Ektachrome if not Kodachrome. Soon we 4/3 and M4/3 owners will finally reap the benefits of half frame size bodies and lenses.
Two asides: I read in Wiki that Kodachrome (they must have meant ASA25) had about 20MP equiv of info, so about 30MP with a Bayer sensor is where we need to go to equal it digitally. The color neg films I have scanned (Kodacolor, etc) have way less sharpness and saturation than even Ektachrome type slide film. So our 10/12MP 4/3 sensors already better the film that used to account for at least 90% of film sales.

FT is 1/4 of 35mm film, aps-c is about half. Kodachrome 25 used to claim medium format quality from 35mm, there r also 64 which is most popular but again slide film has little DR, but neg. have very high DR. 20MP is medium format quality. Yes, 10/12MP is 35mm qaulity, and 16MP is like 645 already, and we should be happy to know EM-5 is closer to 645 than 35mm. Every FT user should be happy be able to use FT MFT as medium format already. It is not far to move up to 6x7 quality from today technology. From the sample I seen so far ISO performance is not bad, and it is only 1 more sensor away from 6x7, and may be more few years down the road. Who need a FF then?

Sensor surface areas in mm2: FF 864 APS-C 320 FT 225. Sauchiyong is much closer to the mark than I was. The old half frame was the standard 35MM movie frame from silent movie days on and would have needed a sensor area of 432.
By "half frame" I meant to refer to the crop factor of 2 for FT over 1.6 for APS-C, which is where we FT owners will get the advantages of smaller lenses. I misspoke and apologize for my error.

I just don't want to get sidetracked on what i am trying to say here. I mean aps-c is about half of 35mm FF , if you want exact numbers-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg. I hope everybody now know the size of what we are talking about.

> Frist the lenses are so great that

actually the lens is the single biggest problem with the 4/3 system. they are not capable enough to get good light onto the sensor and are the single reason why the image quality (in terms of SNR) is low.

on the other hand, these small aperture (diameter) lenses do contribute significantly to a light-weight system that many people want besides NEX.

there is no such thing as a high-IQ light-weight lens no matter what format you choose. higher IQ only comes with larger aperture (in diameter) thus heavier (cubic in weight).

4/3 will be a good system if we can have some good lenses.

comparison of different formats is very simple,
50/1.4 = 36mm (aperture diameter) = 25/0.7.
they produce exactly the same output in every aspect that you can expect from such a spec. the optical design should also be same or similar, together with weight, and price.

I have to call you out on this again, Yabokkie. Nothing personal.

A 50/1.4 on a 135 gives you the same image as a 25/0.7 on a 43rds with regards to angle of view and depth of field, EXCEPT it does it at a faster shutter speed since it has a 2 stop speed advantage.

If you value a narrow a depth of field, and most of us do, this is a major disadvantage of a smaller sensor size, but the major advantage is that a smaller sensor means that the image circle from the lens can be smaller as well, giving you a smaller lens with no disadvantage in image quality or illuminance.

> EXCEPT it does it at a faster shutter speed since it has a 2 stop speed advantage.

sorry to say but not at all.

there is no speed advantage because using the same ISO on cameras of different formats results different image qualities. same for both film and digital. so the two cannot be compared.

ISO 100 on 4/3 produces about the same image quality as ISO 400 on 135 format if the per area performance of the senors are the same, which is true (with small errors because of different technology levels).

this setting results same amount of light on the whole sensor (= image) regardless of the sensor size, thus image quality (instead of per area quality).

if you don't care image quality, then you can use whatever shutter speed eliminating the base for comparison.

for example, if you shoot
... 50/1.4 ISO 400 on D700 and
... 25/0.7 ISO 100 on E-5 at the same shutter speed,
the two images will be indistinguishable unless you look at things like different WB or image processing styles other than the lens specs.

> If you value a narrow a depth of field

did I mention it? shall we concentrate on the image quality please? though the DoF and exposure related image quality are hard wired together physically (we can come back on it later but just keep things simple for now -- image quality).

Nonsense, Yabokkie. Image quality at different ISOs is entirely sensor dependant and HAS nothing to do with the physical properties of the lens. Fact is, you have a speed advantage with a lower f-number, regardless of angle of view or depth of field, which is contrary to what you've written several times in these comments, and thus a 150mm/2 gives you a 2 stop advantage to a 150mm/4, a 300mm/4, or a ???mm/4.

Now, you're instead saying that there isn't a speed advantage because of noisy sensors, well, that's a SENSOR issue, and has nothing to do with the quality of the lens. This is what we've been saying all along: The sensors are the Achilles heel of the 43rds system, not the optics which are equivalent or better to what the competition offers.

And, by the way, the sensors aren't that bad, they're just not as good as their competition.

Macx,

your argument does not explain why 4/3's image quality is low.

> Now, you're instead saying that there isn't a speed advantage because of noisy sensors,

where did I say that? it's not noisy sensors but dark lenses. the problem of the 4/3 is that it's has no capable lens to feed the sensor enough light for comparable image quality as 35mm format.

on the sensor part, it doesn't have deep enough wells for that image quality (lower enough ISOs), but otherwise (at ISO400 and above) is as good as anyoneelse at per area level.

if the problem is in the lens it can be overcome by making better ones (simple) but if it's in the sensor, and the sensor is already as good as competitors, then there will be no cure and what system needs is a DwD.

The camera is just one part of the equation. The Oly 150mm f2 is twice the price of a 300mm f4 or 135mm f2. Why? The 35-100 f2 is the price of a 70-200mm f2.8 instead of the f4 version. It is a valid comparison to equate DOF. The faster aperture is negated by the poor low light sensor.

actually neither focal length nor aperture change. it's the output image that changes. 150/2.0 will get you exactly the same photo as a 300/4 does, in every aspect that focal length and aperture can affect, so they are "equivallent" -- equivallent results. very basic and straight forward.

> You're confusing the wider depth of field with lens speed,
no. I didn't even mention DoF and you have no base to claim that. I mean EVERY ASPECT that aperture can affect, including DoF and image quality (SNR, specifically shot noise, at the same shutter speed), together with a lot minor qualities like lens aberrations (why 4/3 lenses looks good, they have to unless intentionally made bad).

> faster aperture is negated by the poor low light sensor.

Ah Pek,
the sensors are about the same PER AREA. actually I tested sensors from 35mm full-frame to 1/2.3" with a single piece of lens (Nikkor 50/1.4) and looking at per area performance, the 1/2.3" ones are the best of all, and 35mm ones are not so good include D3.

but why the poor image? the lower image quality doesn't come from the sensor but the lens, that an f/2.0 lens on 4/3 can get the same amount of light on the the sensor (as a whole, no matter the size) as an f/4 lens on 35mm format.

at the same AoV, you will need same aperture size (area or diameter) instead of the same f-number to get the same image quality on all format of sensors of the same per area performance.

so it's the lens that's important, and it's the lens that all of 4/3's lower IQ (shot noise contributed) come from.

No, Yabokkie, you are wrong. Lens speed has absolutely nothing to do with sensor size. You are confusing the TOTAL light output of a lens to the actual illuminance provided which is measured per AREA. So, when a lens made for 43rds is using f-stop 2, it provides as much light /per area/ as a lens made for 135 is using f-stop 2. Angle of view is completely irrelevant to the exposure.

F2 on a 43rds gives you just as much light per area as it does on every other sensor. You're obviously confusing the fact that the DEPTH OF FIELD of a f2 on 43rds is similar to the depth of field of a f4 on 135, but that has nothing to do with illuminance and exposure.

Think about it for a moment, do you input your angle of view in your light meter before it gives you the aperture, shutter speed and ISO needed? No? That's because it's irrelevant.

And thus, your conclusion is baseless. Olympus lenses aren't the weakest link, the weakest link is the higher pixel density on the sensor.

actually I believe there are political issues and it might be worse -- not just an isolated case but the system in whole.

My OM-1 are in mint condition. + 50mm 1.4 + 300mm 4.5, all Zuiko Lens.

think Olympus learned how to make a modern zoom 5 years ago, 12-60/2.8-4 (24-120/5.6-8 equiv.).

a bunch of luddites angry at Oly for killing off their precious OM lenses, & of course marginalizing 4/3 lenses if not outright killing them. "What has Olympus done to you? Some people have a lot to say about that. IMO, they don't deserve the stage they get, but that opinion matters little too

I have a Panasonic razor that works great. I have Panasonic cameras that work great and "Leica" badged Panasonic cameras that work even better. From tape decks in the 1960s to now, I've never had a Panasonic product that didn't work great. There's nothing wrong with the "Panasonic" brand name and nothing to be ashamed of in owning a Panasonic camera.

Actually, I could never buy a Leica. My mother has a Hoover. Same badge.

El logotipo, el punto rojo.

I once heard of a guy who gatecrashed a meeting of Leica owners in England. He'd disguised his camera to look like a vintage Leica to get in. But he couldn't find a real Leica badge to stick on it. So he took the badge from his Hoover vacuum cleaner. When the esteemed members of the club examined his unique camera more closely, they saw the name on the red dot logo was Hoover. I gather he was invited to leave.

Que tengas un buén fin de semana ;-)

The judiciary is not corrupt. The courts are impartial. It's in who get's caught, arrested and charged, and who does not, that the shady flow of favors and influence can be observed.

Life's a b*tch, ain't it? RITZ CAMERAS today does not carry Canon and many other brands, either. You've gotta go to B&H or Adorama or 47h Street in NYC to get all the makes.

@YouDidnt
See 11 U.S.C. 365. The bankruptcy code allows the rejection of executory contracts, subject to certain restrictions...and it's fairly common knowledge that suppliers etc. can get royally screwed in bankruptcy (or administration, depending on the jurisdiction). And from the sound of it, Ritz's purchase of Wolf was done pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 363, which allows for the purchase of assets free and clear of the bankrupt estate's liens and encumbrances.
By the way, it's my understanding that under English law (Insolvency Act 1986 as amended), the administrator of a company in administration can conduct repudiatory breach, damages for which are unsecured claims. This isn't terribly dissimilar, from what I gather, from a 365 rejection that leaves the creditor with an unsecured claim for damages.
Not sure where you're going with what you said - wherever a company goes bankrupt, counterparties can get completely screwed. It's simply one of the risks of doing business...

Listen, folks. If another camera maker BUYS Olympus, they will do so only for the singular reason of KILLING IT OFF IMMEDIATELY.

Bye-bye Olympus, in other words.

Anybody here went to B-school? :-))

how about Sony getting an idea how to build pancake lenses? because Sony sucks at it.

Of course Olympus is the leader in term of camera inovation. They developed first TTL flash, Full Syc flash, Ultrasound Sensor Cleaning, live view, art filters and now 5 axis in camera stablizer... They can not compete with Nikon & Canon yet because sensor technology is not here yet for FT to have good ISO performance...