Reading mode: Light Dark

CROSSPOST - No 9D, but KM to Four Thirds?

Go to last post
J

JKirbs

Veteran Member
Messages
2,293
Reaction score
3
Location
US
Hi everyone,

you may think this a little wild, but the more i think about it, i believe there is mileage in the idea, even should it not come to be.

This is a crosspost from the Kodal SLR forum, but if you read the thread there, you will understand my argument.

In summary the supporting ideas are this :
  • Silence at PMA from Kodak, Minolta and Olympus.
  • Kodak's new commitment to the Four thirds system, and their sensor strength at high resolutions.
  • KM's real need to expand a high end offering (connect with Kodak sensors at 12MP and above)
  • Complimentary lens design strengths, between Olympus and Minolta
  • AS plus Olympus' wonderful midget 300/2.0, with KM glass to come.
  • Highly complimentary ergonomic design strengths between Olympus and Minolta
  • Real market potential for DSLRs which aren't stone anchors.
  • Real possibility to align "the other" professional user base.
===============
Original thread is here :
===============

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=12368046

please do check that other thread, as the ideas i summarised are expanded there.

thoughts?

Would you be happy with such an idea? (Allow that you were provided with a high quality lens converter)

Would this direction disturb you in "7D - Land"?

cheers,
  • jk
 
Haven't shot 4/3, but my gut feeling is that I prefer the wider 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm, which most DSLRs use. I'd have to crop to print the most common sizes I make: 4x6 and 13x19.

Of course, it's all arbitrary. It just comes down to what you're used to and what you like.

Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com
JKirbs said:
Hi everyone,

you may think this a little wild, but the more i think about it, i
believe there is mileage in the idea, even should it not come to be.

This is a crosspost from the Kodal SLR forum, but if you read the
thread there, you will understand my argument.

In summary the supporting ideas are this :
  • Silence at PMA from Kodak, Minolta and Olympus.
  • Kodak's new commitment to the Four thirds system, and their
sensor strength at high resolutions.
  • KM's real need to expand a high end offering (connect with Kodak
sensors at 12MP and above)
  • Complimentary lens design strengths, between Olympus and Minolta
  • AS plus Olympus' wonderful midget 300/2.0, with KM glass to come.
  • Highly complimentary ergonomic design strengths between Olympus
and Minolta
  • Real market potential for DSLRs which aren't stone anchors.
  • Real possibility to align "the other" professional user base.
===============
Original thread is here :
===============

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=12368046

please do check that other thread, as the ideas i summarised are
expanded there.

thoughts?

Would you be happy with such an idea? (Allow that you were provided
with a high quality lens converter)

Would this direction disturb you in "7D - Land"?

cheers,
  • jk
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

would you be happy enough if 4/3 was the way of the 9, as it were, and Kodak delivered 12 - 16MP for your crop?

i don't think for a minute Kodak would deliver at market entry less than 12MP in that format, even knowing the constraints of designing a smaller sensor.
  • jk
Jay Williams said:
Of course, it's all arbitrary. It just comes down to what you're
used to and what you like.

Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com
JKirbs said:
Hi everyone,

you may think this a little wild, but the more i think about it, i
believe there is mileage in the idea, even should it not come to be.

This is a crosspost from the Kodal SLR forum, but if you read the
thread there, you will understand my argument.

In summary the supporting ideas are this :
  • Silence at PMA from Kodak, Minolta and Olympus.
  • Kodak's new commitment to the Four thirds system, and their
sensor strength at high resolutions.
  • KM's real need to expand a high end offering (connect with Kodak
sensors at 12MP and above)
  • Complimentary lens design strengths, between Olympus and Minolta
  • AS plus Olympus' wonderful midget 300/2.0, with KM glass to come.
  • Highly complimentary ergonomic design strengths between Olympus
and Minolta
  • Real market potential for DSLRs which aren't stone anchors.
  • Real possibility to align "the other" professional user base.
===============
Original thread is here :
===============

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=12368046

please do check that other thread, as the ideas i summarised are
expanded there.

thoughts?

Would you be happy with such an idea? (Allow that you were provided
with a high quality lens converter)

Would this direction disturb you in "7D - Land"?

cheers,
  • jk
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
What does 4/3 mean? Please explain!
Mario.
JKirbs said:
Hi everyone,

you may think this a little wild, but the more i think about it, i
believe there is mileage in the idea, even should it not come to be.

This is a crosspost from the Kodal SLR forum, but if you read the
thread there, you will understand my argument.

In summary the supporting ideas are this :
  • Silence at PMA from Kodak, Minolta and Olympus.
  • Kodak's new commitment to the Four thirds system, and their
sensor strength at high resolutions.
  • KM's real need to expand a high end offering (connect with Kodak
sensors at 12MP and above)
  • Complimentary lens design strengths, between Olympus and Minolta
  • AS plus Olympus' wonderful midget 300/2.0, with KM glass to come.
  • Highly complimentary ergonomic design strengths between Olympus
and Minolta
  • Real market potential for DSLRs which aren't stone anchors.
  • Real possibility to align "the other" professional user base.
===============
Original thread is here :
===============

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=12368046

please do check that other thread, as the ideas i summarised are
expanded there.

thoughts?

Would you be happy with such an idea? (Allow that you were provided
with a high quality lens converter)

Would this direction disturb you in "7D - Land"?

cheers,
  • jk
Click to expand...
 
I'd be wary of more noise potential packing so many photosites into a smaller area. My current understanding is that the 5MP E1 doesn't do as well with low light as the 7D. Add more pixels, decreasing the size of each photosite and I fear that you might be getting into high noise territory. Moving up to a Pro level body I would hope that Noise level would decrease, not increase.
--
Cheerio...
Rich
 
No, please NO. No smaller sensors and Four-Third..

I like my camera BIG.

Thank you.

Ron
JKirbs said:
Hi everyone,

you may think this a little wild, but the more i think about it, i
believe there is mileage in the idea, even should it not come to be.

This is a crosspost from the Kodal SLR forum, but if you read the
thread there, you will understand my argument.

In summary the supporting ideas are this :
  • Silence at PMA from Kodak, Minolta and Olympus.
  • Kodak's new commitment to the Four thirds system, and their
sensor strength at high resolutions.
  • KM's real need to expand a high end offering (connect with Kodak
sensors at 12MP and above)
  • Complimentary lens design strengths, between Olympus and Minolta
  • AS plus Olympus' wonderful midget 300/2.0, with KM glass to come.
  • Highly complimentary ergonomic design strengths between Olympus
and Minolta
  • Real market potential for DSLRs which aren't stone anchors.
  • Real possibility to align "the other" professional user base.
===============
Original thread is here :
===============

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=12368046

please do check that other thread, as the ideas i summarised are
expanded there.

thoughts?

Would you be happy with such an idea? (Allow that you were provided
with a high quality lens converter)

Would this direction disturb you in "7D - Land"?

cheers,
  • jk
Click to expand...
 
JKirbs said:
Hi everyone,

you may think this a little wild, but the more i think about it, i
believe there is mileage in the idea, even should it not come to be.
Click to expand...
I think the exact opposite. Of course, being Minolta, they probably will do it -- they have an impressive history of dead-in-the-water products and commitments to DOA systems ;-)
 
I do not recall KM join the 4/3 consortium , correct me if I am wrong !! I suppose Oly's desire to obtain image stabilization lies with its alliance with Panasonic ( OIS )

--
Franka
 
For those unfamiliar with 4/3, here is some info:
http://www.photozone.de/bindex7.html

IMO, 4/3 is a bad idea from the start.
It's as foolish as Vectis was to Maxxum.

Technology can only get better and cheaper
in the future. You can expect full-frame CCD's
to be standard in $200 entry-level DSLR's someday.
It's only a matter of time...

4/3 system is basically asking photographers to
invest in cheaper lenses designed for a technology
that is sure to die when full-frame sensors become
mainstream - I anticipate that 4 years from now we
will have full-frame CCD DSLR's for well under $1,500...
That's not too long considering some of my Maxxum
lenses are over 10 years old and still works great on
my 7D.

-Matt
 
Matt Cham said:
That's not too long considering some of my Maxxum
lenses are over 10 years old and still works great on
my 7D.

-Matt
Click to expand...
That being said, would you consider buying lenses specifically designed for APS sized sensors?

What I'm getting at is this: I'm looking at getting the 7D shortly. I'm also wanting to get the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 - however Sigma just announced their new 70-200 f2.8 for DSLRs. Would I be best off getting the newer one, or purchasing the "original" one?

Would there be any difference in quality? There seems to be some concern over how effective AS would be if there was less image circle to work with....

Or am I just talking jibberish !

Thanks,
Simon
 
I guess if it were high enough resolution, I could probably live with it...maybe. But if we're talking about a whole new set of lenses, new body design, etc., that's a whole new ball o' wax. I guess I'd have no choice but to reconsider my system path.

Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com
JKirbs said:
would you be happy enough if 4/3 was the way of the 9, as it were,
and Kodak delivered 12 - 16MP for your crop?

i don't think for a minute Kodak would deliver at market entry less
than 12MP in that format, even knowing the constraints of designing
a smaller sensor.
  • jk
Jay Williams said:
Of course, it's all arbitrary. It just comes down to what you're
used to and what you like.

Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com
JKirbs said:
Hi everyone,

you may think this a little wild, but the more i think about it, i
believe there is mileage in the idea, even should it not come to be.

This is a crosspost from the Kodal SLR forum, but if you read the
thread there, you will understand my argument.

In summary the supporting ideas are this :
  • Silence at PMA from Kodak, Minolta and Olympus.
  • Kodak's new commitment to the Four thirds system, and their
sensor strength at high resolutions.
  • KM's real need to expand a high end offering (connect with Kodak
sensors at 12MP and above)
  • Complimentary lens design strengths, between Olympus and Minolta
  • AS plus Olympus' wonderful midget 300/2.0, with KM glass to come.
  • Highly complimentary ergonomic design strengths between Olympus
and Minolta
  • Real market potential for DSLRs which aren't stone anchors.
  • Real possibility to align "the other" professional user base.
===============
Original thread is here :
===============

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=12368046

please do check that other thread, as the ideas i summarised are
expanded there.

thoughts?

Would you be happy with such an idea? (Allow that you were provided
with a high quality lens converter)

Would this direction disturb you in "7D - Land"?

cheers,
  • jk
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Simon Rutgers said:
That being said, would you consider buying lenses specifically
designed for APS sized sensors?
Click to expand...
It depends on your financial situation.
Just keep in mind that if you buy a for-APS lens,
you will probably have to sell it someday, possibly at
a big loss, compared to a for-FF (for-Full Frame) lens.
I say big loss because when FF-DSLR prices drop to
under $1,500 in about 4 years, only owners of
$200 APS-DSLR's will buy your used lens - and
you can expect that those $200 camera owners
won't shell out big bucks for your premium glass.

But then again, if the price difference between
for-APS and for-FF lens is huge (again depends on
your finances), then maybe it's okay to have
a "disposable" for-APS lens, rather than pay
big $$$ for glass that gives no advantage with
current APS sensors. In fact, the older
glass may be more prone to chromatic
abberation than newer "digital-formula" lenses.

Personally, I only buy expensive glass, so I can't
imagine "disposing" a 300mm f/2 APS lens after
4 years. That's too much money lost in too short
a time frame...

SLR Body prices will always drop. Lens prices are
pretty stable - my 10 year old 50mm f/1.4 was
$170 new in 1994, and it's $250 new today.
Lens value will only drop when the bodies they are
designed for become "dead-end" technology, much
like what happened to Minolta G lenses in early 2003,
when there was no Minolta DSLR in sight. I got
one of my like-new Minolta 300mm f/2.8 G lenses
for $800... The 50mm f/1.4 lenses were ebaying
for $40-50 !

Also, another reason for massive drops in lens
value is compatibility issues. With 3rd party glass,
a compatibility problem with a new body can cause
massive price drops. I'm not saying never buy
3rd party (I have a few myself), but think twice
before you shell out $2,000 on a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina.
Case in point: My Sigma 70-210mm f/2.8 (non-EX)
is incompatible with Maxxum 7, and when this became
known, this lens (normally $700 on ebay) became a
$250 lens on ebay. Fortunately it is compatible
with Maxxum 7D so I didn't have to get rid of it.
I lucked out...but you never know if the 9D
will "hold a grudge" against your current 3rd party
lenses...

-Matt
 
Jay Williams said:
Matt Cham said:
4/3 system is basically asking photographers to
invest in cheaper lenses designed for a technology
that is sure to die when full-frame sensors become
mainstream
Click to expand...
...a la APS.

Jay
http://www.jpwphoto.com
Click to expand...
Minolta had an aps lens based dslr - talk about an anchor! Even if ahead of it's time in concept and execution. Engaging in alternative "consumer" dslrs might be an idea, but not at the expense of full participation in the market with full-size, full capability dlsrs, and in a diverse range of products. Going to a different lens systems is almost suicidal - they've done that before too. And whatever base is left, hoping, praying, wishing, waiting for a super price competitive alternative, using the legacy gear, to Nikon and Canon is gone!
 
Matt Cham said:
It's as foolish as Vectis was to Maxxum.
Click to expand...
Vectis was the Minolta APS interchangeable lens system.
Minolta photo division was hurting quite a bit after that one.

The problem with vectis was that it was marketed
to advanced amateurs who know better and
marketed to casual shooters who don't spend
that kind of money. Basically, it was a product
that no one would every buy. I still remember
the bargain bins lined full of Vectises all across town...

-Matt
 
JKirbs said:
  • Complimentary lens design strengths, between Olympus and Minolta
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand how Oly and KM's lens designs are "complementary".
JKirbs said:
  • Highly complimentary ergonomic design strengths between Olympus
and Minolta
Click to expand...
If KM were to make a 4/3 body, I don't think Olympus would be collaborating with them.

What you need to keep in mind, is that Olympus is the one company without legacy 35mm AF lenses. This is why it benefits them to establish a 4/3 "standard" where they openly allow other manufacturers to make lenses that will fit Oly's bodies. Without it, they would obviously be at a major disadvantage trying to merge into the modern digital photography world. KM, on the other hand (and like Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Sigma/etc), does have a long and modern 35mm lineup, and it would make absolutely no sense at all for them to throw that away and start from scratch.

--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top