Looks like 4/3 *IS* a "Crop"

[Jon Ragnarsson]

(Contunued from part I)

...

others designs, would seem a shame to leave all those experienced
designers twiddling their thumbs once the OM series was
discontinued.

I don't get you. Oly hasn't designed an OM series lens in quite
some time. Their optics designers work on lenses for the IS
cameras, their digital cameras, microscopes and other lab
equipment. All of which are variations on basic themes. They no
longet have the innovation that made things like the 250mm f2.0
possible.

I'm calling your FUD on this. How do you know that? Do you know what engineers have been fired or hired at Olympus? Please enlighten me.

And don't forget the last OM camera (OM-2000) and the last of the
low end OM lenses were designed, built, and manufactured by Cosina.

Yup, and it was a flop. I hope Olympus learned something there.

....

Sorry. My point is that you only totally discontinues something
and design something brand new, when the old design is totally
unsuited to new applications. Otherwise, you just adapt and adjust
the old design.

Pentax started their 35mm line with screw mount lenses. When they
needed aperture indexing for wide open metering, etc. they needed a
new mount, and the K bayonette was born. From that point, they just
made monor modifications (more mechanical control levers, AF
linkage, electrical contacts) but kept the same basic mount.

Canon only scrapped their "breech lock" for the EOS mount because
they needed a wider throat for their 50mm f1.0.

They also needed a electrical contacts for their EOS, so they decided to scrap it for a better design. (After years of telling us how much better it was)

Oly kept plugging along with the OM bayonette, adding more control
levers, contacts for the AF system, etc. but keeping a healthy
degree of backwards compatability.

Now they have the 4/3 system, which according to their press
releases needs a registration distance as deep as 35mm and a throat
as wide as 35mm.

So, which makes more sense, to keep the old mount, or to design
something new which is basically the same as the old mount?
Remember, the OM mount does have a mature AF version.

Can you provide any reason to design a new mount?

To drop all the mechanical contacts, wich are a point of falure.

....

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

 

[Brian Slater]

but you can't make them see.

Brian Slater wrote:

I do expect that the new 4/3 300mm will weigh less

than a typical opric built for 35 mm coverage.

I don't. It will measured in grams, and might actually be heavier.

We'll see in June. Unless Olympus uses someone else's design, the 300/2.8 will be a completely new lens (OM system had 250/2 and 350/2.8).

But I'd much rather carry (and perhaps pay for) an Olympus 4/3 with
its 300mm f2.8, than a Nikon F100 with a 400 f2.8! (Assuming
similar pixel count).

That is a different issue. And I agree with you there. But don't
expect magic lenses that are smaller because of the image circle.

I don't expect magic, just high quality design of compact equipment which has been and Olympus hallmark.

 

[irehound]

Why is anyone comparing the 4/3 300 to a 300 designed for a 35mm camera. The right comparison is the 4/3 150 mm lens to the 300 for the 35 camera. The 4/3 300 would make a 600 on a 35mm camera. A Nikon 400 for the F100 would be a 200 on the 4/3 Olympus.

You are deluding your self if you think that the 4/3 system will
make super light super bright telephoto lenses possible.

But I'd much rather carry (and perhaps pay for) an Olympus 4/3 with
its 300mm f2.8, than a Nikon F100 with a 400 f2.8! (Assuming
similar pixel count).

Jim Collins

 

[Steven Noyes]

Olympus has always put weight and size as top priorities. The OM-1 was simply a great little camera. #1 choice for telescopes because it was high quality and light weight.

Because of this, Olympus's 300mm f2.8 might be smaller because THEY did it. Not because of a smaller image circle. I can't find the spec on their old 35mm 300 f2.8 lens, but I bet is was smaller and lighter in all aspects when compared to others.

Steven

but you can't make them see.

Brian Slater wrote:

I do expect that the new 4/3 300mm will weigh less

than a typical opric built for 35 mm coverage.

I don't. It will measured in grams, and might actually be heavier.

We'll see in June. Unless Olympus uses someone else's design, the
300/2.8 will be a completely new lens (OM system had 250/2 and
350/2.8).

But I'd much rather carry (and perhaps pay for) an Olympus 4/3 with
its 300mm f2.8, than a Nikon F100 with a 400 f2.8! (Assuming
similar pixel count).

That is a different issue. And I agree with you there. But don't
expect magic lenses that are smaller because of the image circle.

I don't expect magic, just high quality design of compact equipment
which has been and Olympus hallmark.

--
---
Something different.
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/in_the_supers

 

[Brian Slater]

Olympus has always put weight and size as top priorities. The OM-1
was simply a great little camera. #1 choice for telescopes because
it was high quality and light weight.

Because of this, Olympus's 300mm f2.8 might be smaller because
THEY did it. Not because of a smaller image circle. I can't find
the spec on their old 35mm 300 f2.8 lens, but I bet is was smaller
and lighter in all aspects when compared to others.

Steven

300/2.8? I don't believe Oly ever made one. They made 250/2 and 350/2.8 monsters. Perhaps I'd better revise my prediction about the weight and size of the new 4/3 tele! I sure am hoping that the mystery long lens in the 4/3 system pdf is a remounted 250/2. Shame on me, I keep doing that mental crop thing 500 f2 ... 500 f2 ... 500 f2 ...

Lens type: Zuiko 350mm f/2.8 EDIF
Focal length : 350mm
Lens construction : 7 groups, 9 elements
Angles of view : Diagonal: 7°
Distance scale : (m) 3m (9.8ft) to infinity
Focusing : Internal Focus mechanism
Minimum and Maximum aperture : f/32-f/2.8
Diaphragm : Automatic
Filter size : Slip-in type Rear filter
Length : 280mm
Weight : 3,900g (137.6 oz)

Len type: Zuiko 250mm f/2.0 EDIF
Focal length : 250mm
Lens construction : 9 groups, 12 elements
Angles of view : Diagonal: 10°
Distance scale : (m) 2.2m (7.2ft) to infinity
Focusing : Internal Focus mechanism
Minimum and Maximum aperture : f/22-f/2.0
Tele-Converter: 1.4X A
Diaphragm : Automatic
Filter size : Slip-in type Rear filter
Length : 246mm
Weight : 3,900g (137.6 oz)

Brian

 

[Brian Slater]

Why is anyone comparing the 4/3 300 to a 300 designed for a 35mm
camera. The right comparison is the 4/3 150 mm lens to the 300 for
the 35 camera. The 4/3 300 would make a 600 on a 35mm camera. A
Nikon 400 for the F100 would be a 200 on the 4/3 Olympus.

Sorry, I meant to say Nikon D100. A Nikon 400/2.8 on that would produce a similar field of view to a 300/2.8 on the Olympus 4/3 system.

Brian

You are deluding your self if you think that the 4/3 system will
make super light super bright telephoto lenses possible.

But I'd much rather carry (and perhaps pay for) an Olympus 4/3 with
its 300mm f2.8, than a Nikon F100 with a 400 f2.8! (Assuming
similar pixel count).

Jim Collins

 

[Steven Noyes]

I thought I have seen references to a Zuiko 300mm f2.8 in the past. Must be wrong on that one. I love my 400mm f2.8, but dang, it is a beast.

Steven

Olympus has always put weight and size as top priorities. The OM-1
was simply a great little camera. #1 choice for telescopes because
it was high quality and light weight.

Because of this, Olympus's 300mm f2.8 might be smaller because
THEY did it. Not because of a smaller image circle. I can't find
the spec on their old 35mm 300 f2.8 lens, but I bet is was smaller
and lighter in all aspects when compared to others.

Steven

300/2.8? I don't believe Oly ever made one. They made 250/2 and
350/2.8 monsters. Perhaps I'd better revise my prediction about the
weight and size of the new 4/3 tele! I sure am hoping that the
mystery long lens in the 4/3 system pdf is a remounted 250/2. Shame
on me, I keep doing that mental crop thing 500 f2 ... 500 f2 ...
500 f2 ...

Lens type: Zuiko 350mm f/2.8 EDIF
Focal length : 350mm
Lens construction : 7 groups, 9 elements
Angles of view : Diagonal: 7°
Distance scale : (m) 3m (9.8ft) to infinity
Focusing : Internal Focus mechanism
Minimum and Maximum aperture : f/32-f/2.8
Diaphragm : Automatic
Filter size : Slip-in type Rear filter
Length : 280mm
Weight : 3,900g (137.6 oz)

Len type: Zuiko 250mm f/2.0 EDIF
Focal length : 250mm
Lens construction : 9 groups, 12 elements
Angles of view : Diagonal: 10°
Distance scale : (m) 2.2m (7.2ft) to infinity
Focusing : Internal Focus mechanism
Minimum and Maximum aperture : f/22-f/2.0
Tele-Converter: 1.4X A
Diaphragm : Automatic
Filter size : Slip-in type Rear filter
Length : 246mm
Weight : 3,900g (137.6 oz)

Brian

--
---
Something different.
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/in_the_supers

 

[irehound]

Sorry, I meant to say Nikon D100. A Nikon 400/2.8 on that would
produce a similar field of view to a 300/2.8 on the Olympus 4/3
system.
-------------

I understand that, my point was though that the telephoto effects of a 300mm 4/3 lens would be more closely approximated by a nikon 600mm lens.

Jim Collins

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I understand that, my point was though that the telephoto effects
of a 300mm 4/3 lens would be more closely approximated by a nikon
600mm lens.

Because for a given pixel density, you can always use the middle 17.8mm x 13.4mm of the larger sensor to get the exact same "600mm" image. That is the definition of the "crop" argument. The lens is the same. The lens resolution in lp/mm is the same. You are just using a smaller section of the image circle.

--
Erik