-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
4/3 Theory
- Thread starter JeffSp
- Start date
Jono Slack
Forum Pro
With a real optical rangefinder (like a G2 or a lieca)
or with an EVF? (or both)
You couldn't use the 4/3 mount (or someone would fit the small prime on their E1 and break the mirror) so it'd have to be different with an adaptor.
Looking at the problems Leica have had making the digital M (which is coming out anyway). I just can't see it.
Why would you buy an Olympus rangefinder with limited lens support when you can have a Leica with a huge resource of lenses?
Epson have already done it - and it's well thought of, but as far as I know nobody is buying them.
I think you need to get the bee out of your bonnet - the idea that this would save 4/3 seems particularly unlikely
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
or with an EVF? (or both)
You couldn't use the 4/3 mount (or someone would fit the small prime on their E1 and break the mirror) so it'd have to be different with an adaptor.
Looking at the problems Leica have had making the digital M (which is coming out anyway). I just can't see it.
Why would you buy an Olympus rangefinder with limited lens support when you can have a Leica with a huge resource of lenses?
Epson have already done it - and it's well thought of, but as far as I know nobody is buying them.
I think you need to get the bee out of your bonnet - the idea that this would save 4/3 seems particularly unlikely
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
I am hardly in the blame game. L-1 did it right: no A mode/B mode etc.
One mode, actual exposure, WB, histogram. All you need for intuitive shooting. Unfortunately monitor has no movement hence no waist level work. Pass...
The idea is that if Oly went as far as providing Live View, an it was very far indeed, then why not go all the way and take the concept to its logical end: full functionality, full adaptibility. I am sure they will iron it out eventually.
One mode, actual exposure, WB, histogram. All you need for intuitive shooting. Unfortunately monitor has no movement hence no waist level work. Pass...
The idea is that if Oly went as far as providing Live View, an it was very far indeed, then why not go all the way and take the concept to its logical end: full functionality, full adaptibility. I am sure they will iron it out eventually.
No, it's not the engineers that postpone.. it's technogy itself. As soon as we see technology that will split light 2ways with negiligible impact to the brightness of that light, we'll have to have mirrors and all that mechanics.
Or how about a glass prism that when it has a charge applied to it, reflects.. when inert it allows transmission.
Put one of them in front of the sensor and you remove the shutter and mirror mechanism. Then you'll have an OVF that blacks out only for the length of the shot!
Not ideal but it's an idea! I've seen glass than opaques at the touch of a switch!
Nah.. these are young guys who design a camera! Technology is technology.. they have to wait upon the research scientists to develope the things that they can implement!
--
No, not optical RF but an EVF-RF
It has been called EVIL in the past by I instinctively shy from this acronym in favour of a much more dignified DRF
Yes, Leica and Epson. I gave it a thought but it seems that it suffers from the same heritage problems as the rest of them. Oly had a clean break with the past with regards to its SLR line and I see no reason why the same canot be done for the RF concept. Designed from the ground up it could be a great addition to what Oly has to offer.
As for interchangability, I do not think you've made a point.
It has been called EVIL in the past by I instinctively shy from this acronym in favour of a much more dignified DRF
Yes, Leica and Epson. I gave it a thought but it seems that it suffers from the same heritage problems as the rest of them. Oly had a clean break with the past with regards to its SLR line and I see no reason why the same canot be done for the RF concept. Designed from the ground up it could be a great addition to what Oly has to offer.
As for interchangability, I do not think you've made a point.
jscott
Senior Member
It sounds to me like you want a system other than FourThirds. FourThirds requires a large flange back and lens mount diameter relative to the sensor size which prohibit the development of cameras and lenses "significantly reduced in size".
Could a camera manufacturer make a system as you describe? Perhaps, but it won't be FourThirds, and it won't be Olympus.
I stand by my initial reckoning.
Regards,
Scott
--
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free
- Tom Petty
Sterotypes.. good word!
So you see, the balance ledger is't as one-sided as it first appeared.
The only thing wrong with the 4/3rds standard is the sensor size. At present is suffers in the easily compared areas. But the sensor tech will improve in the future. We'll then have a nicely tuned system while the bigger sensor standards will still be battling edge-to-edge sharpness, etc.
4/3rds was well thought out 'optically', it's just that they haven't got sensors availble now that can match the bigger sensors iso to iso..
A 4/3rds rangefinder? Well leica are making 4/3rds gear now and are in the consortia so it a RF is to come, that's where I'd look for it. But forum traffic says they don't have the money to research and produce their own unique body! Not as well as the other ranges they do!
So it seems sensible to expect them to rebadge what panny make (like they do)
Could they build a OM'-like body? Yes! Would they? Yes, if they thought enough would buy it and it fullfilled a 'need' out there to keep punters in 4/3rds.
Oly says they are going into smaller models for the female market.
Digital captue needs screens to frame it! so EVFs of whatever flavour are the future, imho.
--
It loses in some areas but gains in others!
At the normal and wide end, no! But towards the tele ends, YES! The 4/3rds gives size benefits to teles!
I'm not sure Oly ever made this a '4/3rds claim'. I'm looking thru a pamphlet now and there's nothing about ££$$ mentioned. [the lenses will be cheaper to make but I they'll not list that as a customer benefit. Smaller lenses = less materials, etc]
They only suffer when sensor specs are comapared. It's easy to compare iso's and noise.. but also compare vignetting and corner to corner sharpenss, distortion, CA, etc.
So you see, the balance ledger is't as one-sided as it first appeared.
The only thing wrong with the 4/3rds standard is the sensor size. At present is suffers in the easily compared areas. But the sensor tech will improve in the future. We'll then have a nicely tuned system while the bigger sensor standards will still be battling edge-to-edge sharpness, etc.
4/3rds was well thought out 'optically', it's just that they haven't got sensors availble now that can match the bigger sensors iso to iso..
They've took a step in that direction with the 330. They can't do more without the 'advanced materials technology' needed. Things like impossibly efficient mirrors and prisms, Multi-MP EVFs with blazing fast refresh rates, etc, etc.
A 4/3rds rangefinder? Well leica are making 4/3rds gear now and are in the consortia so it a RF is to come, that's where I'd look for it. But forum traffic says they don't have the money to research and produce their own unique body! Not as well as the other ranges they do!
So it seems sensible to expect them to rebadge what panny make (like they do)
Oly make modern dSLRs that look like modern dSLRs! I know there's always talk that they 'do things from the outfield' but I haven't seen any wierd pink dSLRs from them, have you? The 300 was still a 'black box' camera!
Could they build a OM'-like body? Yes! Would they? Yes, if they thought enough would buy it and it fullfilled a 'need' out there to keep punters in 4/3rds.
Oly says they are going into smaller models for the female market.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree with optical VFs. They needed them for film cameras! The best way to frame and look at a digital capture is thru a 'tuned' WYSIWYG screen! Then YOU see what the sensor is returning allowing real-time changes! Not post shot reviewing and reshooting!
Digital captue needs screens to frame it! so EVFs of whatever flavour are the future, imho.
--
I hate to think what the output quality of an EVF would be like if incorporated into a range finder system unless you mean the EVF would acquire its image via the main lens in which case it's no longer a range finder system!
--
http://www.pbase.com/eyespy
If it moves shoot it ;-)
eyespy.
Humphrey Nash
Senior Member
Nobody has mentioned macro, so I'll chime in.
The 4/3 system can't be beat for macro among DSLRs. The 4/3 system has the smallest sensor and hence the greatest Depth Of Field. In addition the small sensor magnifies the image so that compared to a "full frame" 35mm DSLR a 4/3 macro image (screen or printed) is twice the size (with the 35mm Oly 1:1 macro lens). This is not a simple "crop" since for the Oly300/330/500 each image is a full 8 megapixels. In addition, the Oly 330 permits macro shots unobtainable with any other DSLR, for example ground level shots. Even more, the 10X critical focusing of the Oly 330 is very handy for macro shots where the DOF is almost invisibly thin.
I don't have a 330 ... yet. I may wait for a 4/3 EVF.
Oly 2040, 4000(deceased), 5050, 8080 http://humphrey.smugmug.com/
The 4/3 system can't be beat for macro among DSLRs. The 4/3 system has the smallest sensor and hence the greatest Depth Of Field. In addition the small sensor magnifies the image so that compared to a "full frame" 35mm DSLR a 4/3 macro image (screen or printed) is twice the size (with the 35mm Oly 1:1 macro lens). This is not a simple "crop" since for the Oly300/330/500 each image is a full 8 megapixels. In addition, the Oly 330 permits macro shots unobtainable with any other DSLR, for example ground level shots. Even more, the 10X critical focusing of the Oly 330 is very handy for macro shots where the DOF is almost invisibly thin.
I don't have a 330 ... yet. I may wait for a 4/3 EVF.
Oly 2040, 4000(deceased), 5050, 8080 http://humphrey.smugmug.com/
Dana199162
Leading Member
That my E500 weighs less than a DRebel.
However, you can't make a camera TOO small or it becomes uncomfortable to hold (and therefore hold steady).
I'm not sure what you want.
--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com
Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820
Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5
However, you can't make a camera TOO small or it becomes uncomfortable to hold (and therefore hold steady).
I'm not sure what you want.
--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com
Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820
Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5
Dana199162
Leading Member
That wasn't stated clearly. Besides, there are already great RF systems out there, and I suspect Zeiss and Leica will have digital versions of those systems out in the near future.
Basing an RF system on the 4-3... Interesting idea, but I think unlikely to happen. We'll see.
--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com
Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820
Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5
Joseph Edward Forks
Senior Member
hard to undo the stereotype of the prototype?
I don't believe Oly is backed into any corner at all. IMO the products are all fine working examples and compare really well to the competition in the same price points. In at least two cases there is no comparison in the same price point in regards to certain features (live preview in the E330 and build quality / weather sealed E1).
Oly is fine, the products do what they are designed to do (make images with great image quality). They are not king of the hill in regards to high iso performance or IS/VR lenses but who really expected them to be?
I don't believe there is but one system that will fit everyone, and I believe that Oly is the best choice for myself and possibly 20% or more of rest of the DSLR consumers
--
-------
I don't believe Oly is backed into any corner at all. IMO the products are all fine working examples and compare really well to the competition in the same price points. In at least two cases there is no comparison in the same price point in regards to certain features (live preview in the E330 and build quality / weather sealed E1).
Oly is fine, the products do what they are designed to do (make images with great image quality). They are not king of the hill in regards to high iso performance or IS/VR lenses but who really expected them to be?
I don't believe there is but one system that will fit everyone, and I believe that Oly is the best choice for myself and possibly 20% or more of rest of the DSLR consumers
--
-------
notofthisearth
Leading Member
Try understanding digital exposure properly, as the saying goes shoot to the right!!
Use RAW shoot to the right, process well and iso 1600 on an E300 is very usable. But, not many people really need iso 3200!! Thereare very few times you really need to use above iso800 and that is even shooting as it turns darker. The lure of high iso's is one more marketing ploy to draw everyone in.
Besides a good photographer can make a good image from anything as I said in my first post.
Stephen
--
http://www.notofthisearth.co.uk
http://www.abannforlife.co.uk
Use RAW shoot to the right, process well and iso 1600 on an E300 is very usable. But, not many people really need iso 3200!! Thereare very few times you really need to use above iso800 and that is even shooting as it turns darker. The lure of high iso's is one more marketing ploy to draw everyone in.
Besides a good photographer can make a good image from anything as I said in my first post.
Stephen
--
http://www.notofthisearth.co.uk
http://www.abannforlife.co.uk
GURL
Leading Member
or one should define the "product usage rate ", "product end use" and "readiness-to-buy" first ?
--
Georges Lagarde http://www.panorama-numerique.com
brokenz
Veteran Member
True.
True.
True.
I think Panasonic is doing something that makes a bit more sense than Oly with it though.
I have to disagree here.
1. Who in the world wants to buy a RF system that has a crop factor?
2. They could just as easily build one around a 1.5 crop (Epson has already done this with the D70 sensor and Cosina body) sensor.
3. Who in the world is going to buy such a niche item? There's a reason manafacturers of consumer oriented cameras abandoned the RF long ago. People (in general) are lazy. Thus the need for AF everything.
People that really need 3200ISO or 8fps generally can afford and already have it. Why compete for such a small market?
Maybe a hybrid AF/RF system for all of those not skilled enough to manually focus a lens. Give it 10 scene modes and small lenses and you're there.
Seriously though, Oly will do something serious sooner or later with the 4/3 format. Or don't wait and watch what Pana/Leica already has on the table.
--
Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.
The best way to frame and look at a digital capture is thru a 'tuned' WYSIWYG screen! Then YOU see what the sensor is returning allowing real-time changes! Not post shot reviewing and reshooting!
Digital captue needs screens to frame it!
You couldn't've put it better! Yes, a tuned WYSIWYG screen on a small tough body. That gives a wholly different perspective. One that was enjoyed for decades by medium and large format photographers. Seeing the image with both eyes. Seeing it as it will be captured. On the other hand, the kit is small enough to carry everywhere yet flexible enough to cover most needs. Paradise...
Well, if you say Leica I'd buy it. It's just that I hope Oly will do somenting in this respect too.
Digital captue needs screens to frame it!
You couldn't've put it better! Yes, a tuned WYSIWYG screen on a small tough body. That gives a wholly different perspective. One that was enjoyed for decades by medium and large format photographers. Seeing the image with both eyes. Seeing it as it will be captured. On the other hand, the kit is small enough to carry everywhere yet flexible enough to cover most needs. Paradise...
Well, if you say Leica I'd buy it. It's just that I hope Oly will do somenting in this respect too.
brokenz
Veteran Member
I encountered the same type of idiocy when I first came here. The assumption is that if you've never been here you must not know how to use a camera.
--
Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.
--
Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.
brokenz
Veteran Member
I'd suggest rangefinderforum.com then. There's alot of discussion about the upcoming digital M. Lot's of discussion about the current Epson rangefinder also.
--
Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.
Yes, I seriously considered L-1. It's Achilles heel, however, is the screen that isn't articulated, which was apparently done on the esthetical grounds. The camera cannot be used at waist level and thus looses its appeal to me.
I want a 4/3 EVIL (DRF) system designed from the ground up with no crop factors or suchlike. With most other contenders preoccupied with ISO, fps, MP count etc. I think it would be a nice move by Oly/Panny
I want a 4/3 EVIL (DRF) system designed from the ground up with no crop factors or suchlike. With most other contenders preoccupied with ISO, fps, MP count etc. I think it would be a nice move by Oly/Panny
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum