Why Four Thirds is better - Lets continue here

There was a Thread discussing Four Thirds.

The content showed, the header "Why FT is in..."
is not justified.

I just got an advertizing email from an amateur photography
supplier, which said "you can" - so I smell, the only reason
for much sold cameras of "that other brand" is heavy advertizing
for not so good cameras.

So lets continue the discussion here under "Why Four Thirds is better" to balance the meaning of the header.

cheers
Martin F

--------------------------------------------
My equipment is in my profile.

that´s a hard one.... same lensmount perhaps - can´t think of much else
--
My blog http://stock-photo.blogspot.com

The only inherent advantage the Four Thirds system has is size. Because
of the smaller sensor size, the lenses can be made smaller as can the camera
bodies. Smaller sensor size can also result in reduced power draw so smaller
capacity batteries could be used.

The flip side to that is the smaller sensor size creates a significant image
quality challenge vis-a-vis the larger APS and Full Frame sensors used in other
DSLRs. So far, the Four Thirds system has not been able to equal the high
ISO performance of the large sensors. It will also be interesting to see how
Four Thirds sensors will do at increased densities such as 10MP or 12MP.

--
When a hammer is your only tool, all problems begin to look like nails.

It is not better.

It just has the lenses, cameras and features that I like/need most.

So I use a fourthirds system now...

(and I hope for a small fourthirds "gurly cam" with live view on 14/9 ;-)

Cephalotus said:

It is not better.

It just has the lenses, cameras and features that I like/need most.

So I use a fourthirds system now...

(and I hope for a small fourthirds "gurly cam" with live view on
14/9 ;-)

Click to expand...

So you do not need any upgrades then?

• Sergey

Olympus said so.

...and a cool logo too ;-)

sngreen said:

Cephalotus said:

It is not better.

It just has the lenses, cameras and features that I like/need most.

So I use a fourthirds system now...

(and I hope for a small fourthirds "gurly cam" with live view on
14/9 ;-)

Click to expand...

So you do not need any upgrades then?

Click to expand...

upgrades for what?

DigitalMaven said:

So far, the Four Thirds system has not been able to equal
the high ISO performance of the large sensors.

Click to expand...

Presumably, it never will. But all it needs to do is perform well enough. If it can do that, then other factors such as size/weight become more significant than high ISO performance.

(and no, I didn't read the original thread ...)

Francis

No, REALLY.
Why should I change, update, upgrade, spend any more money?
I had an OM2SP for 13 years. Why cannnot I expect teh same life from an E-1.

I will be interested to hear your reasoning.
--

1. ######
2. ####_O Tim Yorath
3. #### />
4. #### @ UK.
5. ### \

http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

I think, i'm writing to follow that conversation about 4/3, and how canon and nikon useres think their system are superior...

First of all, yes I'm a 4/3 fan. I have a E-500 kit (14-45 and 40-150).
But i'm suspicious. I also have a 350D kit (18-55 and 55-200 and a 50/1.8).

First bought 350D. I'm very happy with the camera. It is a great camera and its price is very good (value for the money).

But a few months later, after reading lots of reviews, I felt in love about olympus E-500. Value for the money too.

I love both cameras, but in some points I agree canon is better (lots of lenses and acessories and the ISO results). Yes, the ISO results. Canon users love to talk about. And the 7 or 9 focus points. I only use one. The central one. Do you use more? Or other one? Isn't faster composing the scene than selecting the exact match point (when it exists...)? And about the ISO (again): do you use the ISO 1600 all the time? Don't you know ther is software to remove noise?

The E-500 has better built in flash modes, more user friendly menus (you don't have to push the ok button to accept the modifications, like canon does), the valious SSWF (new in 400D) and the kit lenses better than canon. Yes, Zuiko lenses are faster and provide better images (especially the 40-150 vs Canon EF 55-200).

Yes, Canon has more than 60 lenses. 4/3 has only over 20. But how old is the 4/3 system? 3, maybe 4 years? And everyone wants 60 lenses in that time? In my opinion, Zuiko, Leica, Sigma are producing the essential range lenses. Canon have more, right. But in Canon, for example, you have 70-300, 75-300, I, II, III, IS, DO IS... Almost the same focal distance in more than one lenses (and same producer). Zuiko didn't that, yet.

And about the image format: 3/2 vs 4/3. What's the problem? When you publish an image, don't you crop it? I don't print all of my fotos, but made pps prensentations to send to my friends, and (guess) they all have 4/3 computer displays!

Canon and Nikon users, respect the 4/3. It's like a freshman in this things... And, beliver or not, is doing a great job.

Olympus users, can you stop dreaming about the new E-X (Pro DSLR)? The E-1 almost died, and we're all responsable about that. Now, at the end of its line, everyone wants one... And why you want a new Pro DSLR? Will you buy it? Or are you gonna wait until its death, like E-1? In that case, canon users are better consumers...

marf said:

There was a Thread discussing Four Thirds.

The content showed, the header "Why FT is in..."
is not justified.

I just got an advertizing email from an amateur photography
supplier, which said "you can" - so I smell, the only reason
for much sold cameras of "that other brand" is heavy advertizing
for not so good cameras.

So lets continue the discussion here under "Why Four Thirds is
better" to balance the meaning of the header.

Click to expand...

W H Y ?

marf said:

cheers
Martin F

--------------------------------------------
My equipment is in my profile.

Click to expand...

--
Bob,
'There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.' Ansel Adams
Great Pro1
Casio Z750

DigitalMaven said:

The only inherent advantage the Four Thirds system has is size.
Because
of the smaller sensor size, the lenses can be made smaller as can
the camera
bodies. Smaller sensor size can also result in reduced power draw
so smaller
capacity batteries could be used.

Click to expand...

Both the Pentax DS and 350D are smaller and lighter than the Oly DSLRs, the D50 is only larger and heavier than the E-500. I'm not sure that size is an advantage here.

Gareth_R said:

Both the Pentax DS and 350D are smaller and lighter than the Oly
DSLRs, the D50 is only larger and heavier than the E-500. I'm not
sure that size is an advantage here.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Olympus really screwed this up. The promised smaller, lighter and cheaper gears all vanished without a trace.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

sngreen said:

So you do not need any upgrades then?

Click to expand...

The history is repeating itself.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

You are correct to point out that while the potential exists to build
smaller cameras based on the Four Thirds system, the reality is that
the current offerings have not taken advantage of that potential.

So what's left in a practical sense is zero advantage, except that a
particular buyer may like a Four Thirds camera better than one from
a competitive manufacturer. That's really not an advantage, that's
just buyer preference.

--
When a hammer is your only tool, all problems begin to look like nails.

Some sort of trauma? Looking to your profile says it all: you are obsessed, it seems bashing Olympus is the only reason for you to post in these forums... I hope you get paid by doing so, because if you don't, then you just have a real problem, such an obsession for any given company can't be good at all...

Regards. And take care.

Adanac18 said:

Olympus said so.

Click to expand...

In theory this is right. But in practice, 4/3rds has yet to be smaller then 35mm. In fact it's bigger. The Olys and Panasonic is huge next to some 35mm counterparts.

Very well put it, this is the first thread post positive about the 4/3 that I do agree with totally. Instead of keep tauting how technically the system are or how their lens are better than others.

Sadly though, time and tide do not wait for anybody, That is why the 4/3 had not been able to develop a healthy market share ( instead of user populance ). The key question right now is if the 4/3 stable and the established user basis actually can support timely on going system development and support the system retail. Judging from Oly's inability to update the bodies, and inability to field lens and accessories. IT can really be getting people ancious about it.

Yes, the 4/3 is doing fine as a new system, but so in a technical manner, not from a user / marketing / business point of view. The market do not care if the 4/3 is but only a few years old and the nikon is a few decade so. What the market see is the other system had the depth and varieties of bodies and lens to choose from and the 4/3 had not. The 4/3 had not the size and weight advanatege it keep lauding. The 4/3 do not show capability to update their lineup timely. etc etc etc ... nothing technical ... but ......well, So customers made a logical choice about the purchase

Yes the 4/3 is better , from the concept and some technical point of view. But hardly so froma real world one. It will already do good to remain not worse than others ( which in many case it is now )

--
Franka