Silence : The Four Thirds Scenario

Diane B · Feb 22, 2005

Jono Slack said:
I've learned - unless it actually fits in a pocket - then you have
to carry a bag, and if you have to carry a bag . . . . I don't own
a point and shoot now, and just hope I can resist making that error
again.

Kind Regards
jono slack

That's exactly where I've come down. I'm sitting here with still a Canon 10D and have decided I won't budge for awhile. I deicded against the Oly gear and am not sure where I'm headed. I don't think I need FF any longer--I thought I did, but have decided I don't---but.....

--
Diane B
black and white lover, but color is seducing me
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

Don Christolear · Feb 22, 2005

Jono Slack said:
I hope he's got an aquatic black van!
kind regards
jono

It all makes sense now, Jono (BTW, I saw your name, Quentin's....now that I think about it, it was a printout from the dpreview Kodak SLR forum...hmmm. I denied knowing any of you! I know that you would do the same, maybe NOT for the same reasons

My wife does that too!

I realise now what they meant by "this thing kicks serious b*tt if we catch the right wave!".
Don

pixtweak · Feb 22, 2005

As I have stated I won't touch 4/3. It's full frame or medium format. The point about the advantages of being able to use good digitial optics from Olympus, is interesting but FF in my opinion is the professional standard in 35mm.

I would love to see Kodak and Schneider produce a FF sensor, body, and optics. I would argue a FF (35mm dimensions) "point and shoot" with a professional quality Schneider 24 - 300 zoom, with ultrawide and telelphoto adapters, iTTl flash, and no dust issues would be a compelling camera. Certainly more attractive than a 4/3. Assuming it mathches the quality and durabillity of a professional DSLR why mess with being comitted to a specific brand, at this point in time.

JKirbs · Feb 22, 2005

pixtweak said:
As I have stated I won't touch 4/3. It's full frame or medium
format. The point about the advantages of being able to use good
digitial optics from Olympus, is interesting but FF in my opinion
is the professional standard in 35mm.

Hi,

then why, to be nitpicking, is there only one current FF DSLR?

(excluding the Kodak and the older 1Ds, so to be precise only one new FF camera)

jk

pixtweak · Feb 22, 2005

JKirbs said:
pixtweak said:

As I have stated I won't touch 4/3. It's full frame or medium
format. The point about the advantages of being able to use good
digitial optics from Olympus, is interesting but FF in my opinion
is the professional standard in 35mm.

Click to expand...

Hi,

then why, to be nitpicking, is there only one current FF DSLR?

(excluding the Kodak and the older 1Ds, so to be precise only one
new FF camera)

jk

I am not sure what your question and or point is, but would be happy to address it. I have no interest in the 4/3, naturally FF is a key attraction of the SLR n/c. The best 35mm bodies available are FF (Canon and Kodak). Although the D2x, without having seen it, one hopes is going to be close. Still it would be that much better if it were FF.

The best digital quality available is from medium/large format backs. Excuse me if I have come off too direct in my opinion, it is just my opinion and personal preference. I welcome considering other observations and points of view, and accept there will be disagreements once in a while.

JKirbs · Feb 22, 2005

Hi pixtweak,

now i do agree with you that larger photosites are better. I had wished that Mamiya would be out with their ZD, but they were a no show at PMA

SLRs win on versatility. MF wins on viewfinder quality, regardless any other consideration IMO because it is so compositionally important*. Not aimed at you, but who has not used a MF body will never realise the awfulness of even the best SLR viewfinders. More's the pity WRT Mamiya's shyness.

To reassert, I agree that MF and big sensors will rule the day. MF used to rule the pro world. Maybe it will again.

Meanwhile however my question was simply - "Is there any but one full frame 135 DSLR announced in the last year or in the forseeable future?"

And i thought that was the 1DsII.

And i had wished it was the "Minolta 9D"

You weren't being too direct at all. I understand (i hope) what you mean. But, and please see the increasingly detailed cross posts on the KM forum, i had wondered whether the next growth era would be brought along by a new nearly universal standard. My comparisons to Leitz / 135 and APS film are all there in that other thread.

nice talking with you,

john

N.B. artistically i dislike the move to smaller formats because of the loss of short DOF. The day i realised that a f4.0 lens on a Hassy gave such a shallow DOF, all my optics study just sank in. I am perturbed for example that this dictates i buy what may be unnecessarily fast glass for my D2X order . . but then this is also why i respect Olympus for standardising f/2.0 on their primes. That's an engineering feat.

pixtweak said:
JKirbs said:

pixtweak said:

As I have stated I won't touch 4/3. It's full frame or medium
format. The point about the advantages of being able to use good
digitial optics from Olympus, is interesting but FF in my opinion
is the professional standard in 35mm.

Click to expand...

Hi,

then why, to be nitpicking, is there only one current FF DSLR?

(excluding the Kodak and the older 1Ds, so to be precise only one
new FF camera)

jk

Click to expand...

I am not sure what your question and or point is, but would be
happy to address it. I have no interest in the 4/3, naturally FF
is a key attraction of the SLR n/c. The best 35mm bodies available
are FF (Canon and Kodak). Although the D2x, without having seen
it, one hopes is going to be close. Still it would be that much
better if it were FF.

The best digital quality available is from medium/large format
backs. Excuse me if I have come off too direct in my opinion, it
is just my opinion and personal preference. I welcome considering
other observations and points of view, and accept there will be
disagreements once in a while.

JKirbs · Feb 22, 2005

Sea and surf, Don, sea and surf.

I am now off to play a round of golf at midnight. Do you know where i am?

Maybe you should ask your wife? ;-)

Actually it's Quentin i am worrying about. He was snooping around my neighborhood a few weeks back under the guise of getting a job to a printers. (direct line of sight!)

I know better. It's the Kodak Pro Conspiracy!

Incidentally, have you checked in on the crossposted thread? I just gave a full-on pitch there which might be fun to read.

best,

john (in disguise)

Don Christolear said:
Member said:

I hope he's got an aquatic black van!
kind regards
jono

Click to expand...

It all makes sense now, Jono (BTW, I saw your name,
Quentin's....now that I think about it, it was a printout from the
dpreview Kodak SLR forum...hmmm. I denied knowing any of you! I
know that you would do the same, maybe NOT for the same reasons
My wife does that too!
I realise now what they meant by "this thing kicks serious b*tt if
we catch the right wave!".
Don

JKirbs · Feb 22, 2005

pixtweak · Feb 22, 2005

John,

Glad everythings o.k., have appreciated your threads. I was hoping, to the point of certainty, that Kodak was going to come through with a new Professional system. I guess that was wishfull thinking. After all it would probably kill the D2x, right when Nikon is trying to save it's professional market. Guess we will have to wait.

Now I see your point of a potentially new "Universal Standard". Yes there is something to that, which speaks to the advantages of the compatibillity and interchangeabilltiy of lenses and bodies. My "just for the hell of it" thoughts on a professional grade "point and shoot" was sort of in the same line. Except that rather than buy into a system, just get an all in one package that represents the best of what can be made at the time of production.

Look forward to Kodak's next generation Pro DSLR whenever that is, and all the best with your new D2x.

pixtweak · Feb 22, 2005

You know with announcement that Leica is in trouble, wouldn't that be interesting if Kodak (bought Leica) and used that platform and first rate optics to go their own way in the high end digital market.

One wonders what is going to happen with the R9 digital back now. It was my understanding it was the last CCD as opposed to CMOS solution (in 35mm - I guess Fuji is still CCD?), and I thought it was a Kodak/Imacon partnership. I was curious to see how a 10MP CCD stacked up against the 11MP and 12MP CMOS's from Nikon and Cannon.

Not a 4/3 sensor, but it had (hopefully still will) the makings of a quality alternative in the non FF market. The one thing that made Leica tempting in light of it's prohibitive price, was it's 3 year no fault guarentee. For someone who had every body and half my lenses in for repairs this last year, that was a dream guarantee that I wish I had.

JKirbs · Feb 22, 2005

Hi again,

nice to get to know you electronically!

It seems we have been thinking in similar ways about the same things, and from different perspectives.

I'd like to say "great minds . . " but to be honest we have the same stimuli in terms of what the industry tells us publicly. So i expect that early convergance of thoughts is inevitable once one thinks hard.

As Shopenhauer said, all truth goes through three stages : 1. Ridicule, 2. Violent opposition 3. Being considered self apparent and obvious.

I tell any soul who asks me tips on anything that the art is just being ahead of reaction number two

Incidentally, though i guess you read my back - posts, i was all up for a F6 Kodak DSLR. Oh My!, that would be great. But i knew at the time that was pipe dreams.

There's now some horrible things being said about the DX2 in the exact same area i need it to perform.

Frankly, if i cannot develop my technique to get what I want, I should by rights never have had the money to afford my order.

As you very accurately surmise, i really think there is an opportunity for a "pro" P&S. But i think this will not happen without deep thought from the users, because there are real areas of intertia which stop companies doing what someone has the "guts" to feel is right. As the Japanese exec who listened to Steve Jobs' pitch for them to supply the Mac 128k with drives (when Apple were nobody) said, "I want consensus, and i want it NOW!" Our cousins over there are well versed in knowing how to surprise even the most jaundiced western observer. They are more choosy to pick their moments however, not being as beholden to PR and marketing "verse" as are we. Power to them.

As a personal post script, my company registered it's (trademark name) dot com years ago. Have we made a site yet? No. Is that "silence"? No. A company does not exist to merely tout its wares to accidental voyeurs. This is why i think something is afoot in the DSLR world. Silence can be golden

Thank you for your good wishes regards the D2X. That order is an act of faith. I find, with work, that acts of faith pay off, not only in the personal sphere.

Thank you, once again, for a very enjoyable discussion,

john

pixtweak said:
John,

Glad everythings o.k., have appreciated your threads. I was
hoping, to the point of certainty, that Kodak was going to come
through with a new Professional system. I guess that was wishfull
thinking. After all it would probably kill the D2x, right when
Nikon is trying to save it's professional market. Guess we will
have to wait.

Now I see your point of a potentially new "Universal Standard".
Yes there is something to that, which speaks to the advantages of
the compatibillity and interchangeabilltiy of lenses and bodies.
My "just for the hell of it" thoughts on a professional grade
"point and shoot" was sort of in the same line. Except that rather
than buy into a system, just get an all in one package that
represents the best of what can be made at the time of production.

Look forward to Kodak's next generation Pro DSLR whenever that is,
and all the best with your new D2x.

JKirbs · Feb 22, 2005

Hi pixtweak,

pal, it's good what you post here.

but Kodak must clean its own house. I believe i am obliged to disclose i do not hold Kodak stock, but am considering to do so. Such are the disclaimer requirements in law now for even so friendly a forum

But i think Kodak should spin off its halide divisions and as a new digital company go to the market for new capital.

In which case, how would owning Leica stand with all that?

I am not cognisant the financial history of Leica, but some Asia - Pacific interests (Malaysians?) yanked it out of bankruptcy not so long ago.

Aww, i ithink i am talking about Hassy' and it's just too late here for the coffee to have effect.

So i guess i am wrong about who owns Leica.

But by my view (which is not backed by any investment, at time of writing) I would sell the optical instruments division to Oly and Angenieux, the measuring division to Trimble Navigation to get well marketed high res GPS in their digital sextant line, and having finally made enough money to tide over the problems, look for a white knight private investor who loves photography and who would be prepared to realise Leica should be much smaller and sell the MP and M7 lines, trade any cross licensed patents it holds with Zeiss that it can, and rest easy as the last and premium bastion of film.

If at the same time Kodak spun off its halide photography divisions, I'd lump Leica with that, at least for a while. Sorry i have no real investment rationale for that, just a marketing and channel rationale. Take a real winger on the idea, if Tektronix can sell wax printers once off with a lifetime supply of black ink, could not Leica do the same? And there are some good scannign companies available for peanuts, if you might ask nicely . . . funny how Hassy did the same, btu it's worth nothing without the channel, and Leica has far more opportunity to open up the channel. From the marketing standpoint alone, they could (owning Kodak Halide) reposition themselves in as elite an echelon as they always did with a system camera, simply because halide is dwindling into "afficionado" territory.

I have posted before about the living hell i think an R9 back would be.

I say also that a three year guarantee is nothing. The EU stipulates a widely applicable statutory 2 year guarantee for all goods. So anything less than 2 years is actually a false claim and a liability in representation and i do not deal with such adverts as tout the silliness i just mentioned.

With the hand work that Leica indulges, three years is a joke. That's like 1970s Rolex. Status, but no credibility.

best,

john

to tired to spot the typos. until soon . . .

pixtweak said:
You know with announcement that Leica is in trouble, wouldn't that
be interesting if Kodak (bought Leica) and used that platform and
first rate optics to go their own way in the high end digital
market.

One wonders what is going to happen with the R9 digital back now.
It was my understanding it was the last CCD as opposed to CMOS
solution (in 35mm - I guess Fuji is still CCD?), and I thought it
was a Kodak/Imacon partnership. I was curious to see how a 10MP
CCD stacked up against the 11MP and 12MP CMOS's from Nikon and
Cannon.

Not a 4/3 sensor, but it had (hopefully still will) the makings of
a quality alternative in the non FF market. The one thing that
made Leica tempting in light of it's prohibitive price, was it's 3
year no fault guarentee. For someone who had every body and half
my lenses in for repairs this last year, that was a dream guarantee
that I wish I had.

JKirbs · Feb 22, 2005

Hi again,

i know this is belated, and we have discussed this thoroughly, but for the benefit of the overall argument,

did you think that shooting 135 film was being tied to a brand?

I belabour my point. Fogrive me this time.

john

pixtweak said:
As I have stated I won't touch 4/3. It's full frame or medium
format. The point about the advantages of being able to use good
digitial optics from Olympus, is interesting but FF in my opinion
is the professional standard in 35mm.

I would love to see Kodak and Schneider produce a FF sensor, body,
and optics. I would argue a FF (35mm dimensions) "point and shoot"
with a professional quality Schneider 24 - 300 zoom, with ultrawide
and telelphoto adapters, iTTl flash, and no dust issues would be a
compelling camera. Certainly more attractive than a 4/3. Assuming
it mathches the quality and durabillity of a professional DSLR why
mess with being comitted to a specific brand, at this point in time.

pixtweak · Feb 23, 2005

This again was more for discussion purposes, for example I would much prefer the SLR n/c in a Leica R9 body than what it is now. Obviously all manual lenses not to mention price, are not compatible with the best direction for Kodak or any other camera maker to go in. After all Leica is in trouble for a reason.

But precision, straightforward German design, and rock solid construction are these elements present in the current offering from Kodak? When you hold a Leica you are holding a beautifuly enginered photographic instrument. Albeit without the latest bells and whistles, but with confidence that you could take it anywhere and it will get the job done. I am saying that never having owned a Leica, but I wouldn't hesitate using one.

The other reason I brought this speculative scenerio up, is I wish Kodak didn't have to answer to Nikon and Canon. I wish the market could justify Kodak making it's own line of Leica quality lenses for a Leica quality DSLR for the price of a Nikon. It's unlikely if not impossible, but that is the wish behind my wild speculation.

Over and Out...

Quentin (UK) · Feb 23, 2005

Jono Slack said:
Quentin (UK) said:

I don't see the point in Kodak using another manufacturers body.
That would be to repeat the problem they have in 35mm.

If I were Kodak, then 4/3 would make a lot of sense, provided they
made, or had a sub-contractor make, bodies to their design. The
beauty of 4/3 is that it's an open standard, so Oly lenses, for
example, could be used on a Kodak body - no need to design and make
a complete lens range yourself.

If Kodak have to use hand-me-down bodies for 35mm format, they can
never compete on a level playing field with Canon and Nikon. with
4/3 they can compete musch more effectively.

But I'm not sure I an a buyer for a 4/3 system. I want the
additional real estate and resolution larger formats offer.

Click to expand...

Hi there, but if, in two years, they could produce a good quality
16mp body . . . . you've played with the E1 - wouldn't you be
tempted?

Hi Jono,

Probably not, because buy then, We'll probably have too many higher resolution choices in 35mm sized format - possibly including a full-frame Nikon, and a 1Ds III wtih 24mp.

Quentin

Jono Slack said:
kind regards
jono

TrapperJohn · Feb 23, 2005

That wouild all be a matter as to where Kodak wishes to position itself.

A move to producing a 4/3 body would put it in the amateur DSLR market, because that's where 4/3 is positioned right now. Until someone cranks out a 4/3 sensor in the 10-12mp range, it really can't compete with the D2x/1Dsmk2/SLRx. Right now, it would take Kodak to produce that sensor. Hmmm....

On the other hand, look at what Olympus showed off at PMA - three very high priced, very pro lenses, all in the $3k+ range, plus the $1800 7-14. You don't build lenses like those for 5 or 8mp amateur bodies. Either Olympus has a serious pro body in the works, or someone else has and Oly knows about it. My guess would be that Oly itself has a serious body in the works, with Kodak to provide the sensor. They already have a terrific, weather sealed body. All they need is upgraded sensor and electronics. And Oly has moved back into the entry level DSLR market in a fairly successful way with the E300. It's no small task to go head to head with the 300D and D70, and achieve any headway at all.

If Kodak plans on moving directly into the 4/3 body market , they will be competing with one of their better OEM purchasers. It's a safe bet that Panasonic would love to supply 4/3 sensors, now that they're in the consortium, and that could happen if Kodak starts directly competing with Olympus. This could be interesting.

K-M? I doubt it. They just blew a fortune putting the 7D on the market, which is probably why they have nothing new at PMA. They put out all of their new stuff last fall. It seems unlikely that K-M would alienate 7D buyers by dumping the body shortly after bringing it out. Of course, legacy lenses can be a millstone around the neck, which was one of the reasons behind 4/3 in the first place. Just my opinion, but stabilization on still cameras is not a 'must have'. Nice, but for the most part, a $100 tripod can accomplish the same task.

Much as one hates to think of it, a shakeout in the digicam industry is coming. Sales are slowing down, and the marginal players may start dropping in the next year or two. While their equipment is top rate, both K-M and Pentax are locked to marginal legacy lens systems, which isn't going to help them when sales really slow down. Nikon has Nikkor, Canon has EOS, Oly has 4/3 and so does Panasonic, while Kodak sits on the fence with a hand in all three.

Oh, and what about Sony? After the 828 debacle, they are suitably cautious, but... they have to be eyeing the amateur DSLR market with envy. But what lens system would they use? 4/3 looks rather attractive, given Sony's proclivity towards small cameras.

Thom Hogan · Feb 23, 2005

JKirbs said:
But this is just to solicit your thoughts on how you would respond
if Kodak will be active in imaging for Four Thirds,

Isn't Kodak already active in 4/3 by making sensors for one of the camera makers?

The thing I've noticed about Kodak in the last year is this: except for consumer digital, they've been backing away from finished products and pushing more towards being a supplier to others again.

To my way of thinking, Sony, Fujifilm, and Kodak all have somewhat confusing digital strategies at the moment. In the case of Sony and Kodak, I don't know how you successfully straddle the supplier/competitor line long term--you should really pick one or the other, IMHO. In the case of Fujifilm and Kodak, they both seem to be lacking a coherent long-term strategy towards the pro markets, partly, I think, because of the rapid shift away from MF gear. Both seem to have a better chance at the consumer side, especially if they can figure out the digicam/minilab connection that works.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

JKirbs · Feb 23, 2005

pixtweak said:
This again was more for discussion purposes, for example I would
much prefer the SLR n/c in a Leica R9 body than what it is now.
Obviously all manual lenses not to mention price, are not
compatible with the best direction for Kodak or any other camera
maker to go in. After all Leica is in trouble for a reason.

But precision, straightforward German design, and rock solid
construction are these elements present in the current offering
from Kodak? When you hold a Leica you are holding a beautifuly
enginered photographic instrument. Albeit without the latest bells
and whistles, but with confidence that you could take it anywhere
and it will get the job done. I am saying that never having owned
a Leica, but I wouldn't hesitate using one.

The other reason I brought this speculative scenerio up, is I wish
Kodak didn't have to answer to Nikon and Canon. I wish the market
could justify Kodak making it's own line of Leica quality lenses
for a Leica quality DSLR for the price of a Nikon. It's unlikely
if not impossible, but that is the wish behind my wild speculation.

Over and Out...

Nabal · Feb 23, 2005

TrapperJohn said:
Until someone cranks out a 4/3 sensor in the 10-12mp range, it really
can't compete with the D2x/1Dsmk2/SLRx. Right now, it would take
Kodak to produce that sensor. Hmmm....

It is noteworthy that in addition to Kodak, Fuji, Matsushita and Sanyo are also members of the 4/3rds consortium - and they are all fabricators of digital imaging chips. It is good for Olympus to be in the position of choosing the chip technology which is best able to meet or beat the low noise/high ISO performance of the Canon CMOS. 6 months ago, Kodak announced they were partnering with IBM for developing new imaging sensor technologies. In summary, it is only a matter of time until 4/3rds imaging sensors can give market leader Canon a real challenge in image quality - with smaller, lighter equipment.

TrapperJohn said:
On the other hand, look at what Olympus showed off at PMA - three
very high priced, very pro lenses, all in the $3k+ range, plus the
$1800 7-14. You don't build lenses like those for 5 or 8mp amateur
bodies. Either Olympus has a serious pro body in the works, or
someone else has and Oly knows about it.

There should be no doubt that both Fuji and Kodak each have several different prototype versions of 4/3rds dSLRs. But putting them into production is a marketing decision, which is based on timing and how they would compare with the competition. Nobody wants to introduce a product which on day one is described as "too little and too late." The challenge is being able to "leapfrog" the competition with a camera that has a competitive price.

TrapperJohn said:
If Kodak plans on moving directly into the 4/3 body market , they
will be competing with one of their better OEM purchasers. It's a
safe bet that Panasonic would love to supply 4/3 sensors, now that
they're in the consortium, and that could happen if Kodak starts
directly competing with Olympus. This could be interesting.

So long as the Kodak and Fuji dSLRs have used the Nikon lens mount, they have been unable to profit by marketing their own lenses. The market for F-mount lenses is already saturated, and new entrants could compete only on the basis of price. On the other hand, th market for 4/3rds lenses is still in its early growth phase and is essentially wide open. The Olympus lens lineup is lacking in fast wide-angle, normal, and portrait length primes. While the new f/2 zooms are impressive they will also be expensive, opening the door for constant f/2.8 equivalent lenses selling for half as much. Both Fuji and Kodak (through Schneider) could supply these lenses, and make a nice profit doing so.

TrapperJohn said:
Much as one hates to think of it, a shakeout in the digicam
industry is coming. Sales are slowing down, and the marginal
players may start dropping in the next year or two.

I agree, but dSLR cameras are apparently the fastest growing segment of the market and also the most profitable. There is money to be made by selling "made for digital" dSLR lenses. The market for "pro" level ($4000. +) dSLRs will always be very small and very competitive, but the $1500 and below categories is open to a lot more choices for consumers. Canon probably sells 5,000 Digital Rebels for every 1DsMkII they sell, and the high priced cameras require much more expense for R&D to stay on the cutting edge of technology.

TrapperJohn said:
Oh, and what about Sony? After the 828 debacle, they are suitably
cautious, but... they have to be eyeing the amateur DSLR market
with envy. But what lens system would they use? 4/3 looks rather
attractive, given Sony's proclivity towards small cameras.

I believe none of the current members of the 4/3rds consortium would see any benefit in accepting SONY into the group - and therefore SONY will not be using the 4/3rds lens mount, unless they reverse engineer it.

Silence : The Four Thirds Scenario

Forum Pro

Don Christolear

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts