Are 4/3 Cameras the Wrong Format?

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't it seem that the 4/3 cameras coming out (EP-1, GF-1, GH-1) are all missing the point by being delivered in the wrong format? I mean SLR or not, they are SLR shaped and for all practical purposes, with a lens they're just slightly smaller SLRs.

If I wanted something the size and shape of say a GF-1 with a 6x lens, I'd just get an SLR. I hate when they talk about the body size and just pretend it doesn't need a lens.

Shouldn't these sensors be in cameras more like the TZ7 and G10 or even bridge cameras like the FZ-38 or SX20? To me it seems that they are missing their market entirely.

MaxAppman said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't it seem that the 4/3 cameras coming out (EP-1, GF-1, GH-1) are all missing the point by being delivered in the wrong format? I mean SLR or not, they are SLR shaped and for all practical purposes,

Click to expand...

How can they be SLR shaped?

• Some of them don't have a hump

• Some of them don't have a viewfinder

• Some of them don't have a grip

• All of them don't have a mirror - the R in SLR

maxappman said:

with a lens they're just slightly smaller SLRs.

Click to expand...

Slightly is relative. Like relative to a Nikon D3 or a Canon equivalent?

maxappman said:

If I wanted something the size and shape of say a GF-1 with a 6x lens, I'd just get an SLR. I hate when they talk about the body size and just pretend it doesn't need a lens.

Click to expand...

You would? There are people who have been railing about NOT wanting a SLR. Because they don't want:

• A mirror

• Optical Viewfinder

• Relatively larger body.

maxappman said:

Shouldn't these sensors be in cameras more like the TZ7 and G10 or even bridge cameras like the FZ-38 or SX20? To me it seems that they are missing their market entirely.

Click to expand...

The big point you're missing is those cameras you mention have a shape and size that is suitable for a small sensor. If you fit a Four Thirds sensor into those bodies, the lenses won't work properly. You need to make bigger lenses. But if you make bigger lenses.......

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

First, thanks for your response but you can be a little more polite when posting.

Horribly missing sounds a little arrogant and demeaning so lets be a little nicer yes?

Moving on, who cares that they took out the hump, the viewfinder, the grip, this is all for fashion and actually loses functionality. My A710 has a viewfinder and a better grip than the EP-1 (and a flash BTW) and is still half the size of any of these 4/3 cameras with a lens . The only thing wrong is the too small sensor. A slightly larger version of this camera would be much more 'in demand' than these 4/3 cameras will be.

And who cares about the size of the body when its the lens that makes these cameras need a bag to carry just the same as an SLR. These 4/3 cameras may look a little different than an SLR but in reality don't appear any easier to lug around. You need to throw an SLR in a bag and lug lenses. You need to throw a 4/3 camera in a bag and lug lenses. No pocketability here so who cares. If you need a bag you need a bag. 4/3 cameras may make a new and arguably better fashion statement, but they are really no more practical at all.

A GF1 with a fixed lens with a decent zoom would at least be some kind of progress on practicality for 'the masses' who don't want to lug all this gear around.

For most people who are already not willing to lug an SLR around, these cameras will make no difference at all. They will still be in the 'not easy to lug' category and quickly eliminated from the list.

MaxAppman said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't it seem that the 4/3 cameras coming out (EP-1, GF-1, GH-1) are all missing the point by being delivered in the wrong format? I mean SLR or not, they are SLR shaped and for all practical purposes, with a lens they're just slightly smaller SLRs.

If I wanted something the size and shape of say a GF-1 with a 6x lens, I'd just get an SLR. I hate when they talk about the body size and just pretend it doesn't need a lens.

Shouldn't these sensors be in cameras more like the TZ7 and G10 or even bridge cameras like the FZ-38 or SX20? To me it seems that they are missing their market entirely.

Click to expand...

Who says a camera has to be a 3:2 aspect ratio?

There is no 'perfect format' . . . never has been . . . never will be!

As for your question about why they are making them . . .

Because people have been crying for these things for years . . . so now they are being made.

Pretty simple, really.

--
J. D.
Colorado



I do understand its a Jeep thing . . . thats why I bought a Dodge!

You asked if you were missing something, and AnandaSim was kind enough to tell you just how far off the mark you are. Perhaps a little more gratitude is in order.

MaxAppman said:

First, thanks for your response but you can be a little more polite when posting.

Horribly missing sounds a little arrogant and demeaning so lets be a little nicer yes?

Click to expand...

Whoa! An Admonition already! I am not an English native but I grew up reading English books. Genteel English books when I was younger used to often use words like "horribly", "frightfully", "terribly" - it was a turn of the phrase that was quite colloquial and quite written.

"Frightfully sorry old chap for the upset" = "If you think that was rude dude, hang around the forums more and you'll see even more kewl stuff"

maxappman said:

Moving on, who cares that they took out the hump, the viewfinder, the grip, this is all for fashion and actually loses functionality. My A710 has a viewfinder and a

Click to expand...

Eh? You don't see the point. Does your A710 mount a 2 kg lens? It doesn't? Then you don't need a grip. Don't want a 2kg lens? Well, that's why you are using the A710 - it doesn't need a 2kg lens to give you a 300mm equivalent focal length at f/2 on a bigger sensor.

maxappman said:

better grip than the EP-1 (and a flash BTW) and is still half the size of any of these 4/3 cameras with a lens . The only thing wrong is the too small sensor. A slightly larger version of this camera would be much more 'in demand' than these 4/3 cameras will be.

Click to expand...

Cameras now run a gamut of sizes and ranges. You can get ultrazooms now that go 10x, 12x, 15x, 20x, 24x. Those would be larger than the A710 because they have a bigger tele lens. But they are not huge because they have a similar size sensor to the A710.

maxappman said:

And who cares about the size of the body when its the lens that makes these cameras need a bag to carry just the same as an SLR. These 4/3 cameras may look

Click to expand...

Dude. Did you read what I just wrote? You want a sensor bigger than your A710. A sensor of the 4/3 size is bigger but it needs a big lens. A camera bigger than your A710 but smaller than the 4/3 is like those ultrazooms but they DON'T HAVE A BIG ENOUGH SENSOR.

maxappman said:

a little different than an SLR but in reality don't appear any easier to lug around. You need to throw an SLR in a bag and lug lenses. You need to throw a 4/3 camera in a bag and lug lenses. No pocketability here so who cares. If you need a

Click to expand...

You don't. So, DON'T BUY THEM. Buy a small sensor ultrazoom. But, oh, you don't want a small sensor.

maxappman said:

bag you need a bag. 4/3 cameras may make a new and arguably better fashion statement, but they are really no more practical at all.

Click to expand...

To you. Yes.

maxappman said:

A GF1 with a fixed lens with a decent zoom would at least be some kind of progress on practicality for 'the masses' who don't want to lug all this gear around.

Click to expand...

The GF1 has a bigger sensor the four thirds sensor. The Four Thirds Sensor with a DECENT ZOOM can only match this:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html#14-140f40-58

10x zoom but only f/4. Even then it won't fit in your pocket. If you make it a fixed lens, you save maybe, maybe 1 cm. That's still not gonna fit in your pocket.

maxappman said:

For most people who are already not willing to lug an SLR around, these cameras will make no difference at all. They will still be in the 'not easy to lug' category and quickly eliminated from the list.

Click to expand...

Yes, don't buy them. They are not for you. Ok?

Buy one of these:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209grouplongzoom/

But oh, dang! They have a small sensor!

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

A 35mm film natura S with its 24/1.9 lens was very small.
So you can have a large sensor and still have a small lens.
Would love a digital natura S.

Andrew

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Who says a camera has to be a 3:2 aspect ratio?

There is no 'perfect format' . . . never has been . . . never will be!

Click to expand...

There may not be a perfect format but the ideal format has long been recognized as 6x7.

I do not see why any of the DSLR companies have not thought outside the box and built a camera purposed to function with all their existing 35mm DSLR FF lenses but in conjunction with a sensor that was 30mm x 35mm instead of 24mm x 36mm.

I imagine existing 35mm DSLR FF lenses would provide coverage for a sensor as large as 36mm x 36mm. Instead of 3:2 why not go back to basics with 6x7 or square proportions?

I would love one but can't afford one.

To the OP:

• Andrew is talking of a fixed, fixed lens. No, I'm not stuttering. I don't know that camera but I guess his lens only has 24mm. It's NOT a "fixed lens with a decent zoom"

If you want a larger sensor fixed, fixed lens, the Sigma models are that. But there is no "decent zoom" in them.

• People keep saying that the digital sensor needs light coming at it in a perpendicular direction, not slanted. That's why the lens has to be further away from the sensor, making the body thicker. The new Leica M9 has a special Kodak sensor specially made so that micro lenses on the sensor slant - that's the only way they can make a 24x36mm sensor work properly in the Leica. But that Leica M9 is also not something that one could slip into the pocket easily, from what I see of the photos.

andrewD2 said:

A 35mm film natura S with its 24/1.9 lens was very small.
So you can have a large sensor and still have a small lens.
Would love a digital natura S.

Andrew

Click to expand...

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

denniswms said:

I imagine existing 35mm DSLR FF lenses would provide coverage for a sensor as large as 36mm x 36mm. Instead of 3:2 why not go back to basics with 6x7 or square proportions?

Click to expand...

I used to shoot size 127 film when I was a kid. I found no problem - the photo finishers easily made the prints, we mounted them onto decorative albums using photo corners - remember those?

Then I turned around and it was all 3:2 3R and then 5R etc.. prints. Could not find general public using any other size. All the albums were now transparent plastic pockets with non adjustable sizes - photo corners were gone. I think it's the common plastic photo album that is causing people to keep on to 3:2

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

AnandaSim said:

The big point you're missing is those cameras you mention have a shape and size that is suitable for a small sensor. If you fit a Four Thirds sensor into those bodies, the lenses won't work properly. You need to make bigger lenses. But if you make bigger lenses.......

Click to expand...

The lenses would still work OK because one of the main ideas of a Four Thirds is that it allows for a smaller lens, the ratio being closer to a circle than the Two to Three ratio of the 35mm (not enough of an excuse for what I find a sorta ugly ratio me thinks, but still, just what ya used to I guess)

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

MaxAppman said:

Are 4/3 Cameras the Wrong Format?

Click to expand...

Obviously not, people are buying them.

If you want something different, by all means say so, but it would be better to start out from a blank sheet and state your needs or wish list, rather than choosing something which does not meet your needs then saying how bad it is.

Regards,
Peter

maxappman said:

Shouldn't these sensors be in cameras more like the TZ7 and G10 or even bridge cameras like the FZ-38 or SX20? To me it seems that they are missing their market entirely.

Click to expand...

Reading here and elsewhere has shown me that the camera makers generally know what they're at. I don't think you can just put a bigger sensor into a superzoom and expect to get a package to match a 4/3 with interchangeable lenses. If you could, surely someone would have tried it?

Again may I say its a bit of too loopsided debate at play here ...

FOA, what you are talking about is Micro 4/3 , noit 4/3 which is different system, and then light and compact is always a relative term, the GF-1 even with lens is indeed smaller, and lighter than DSLR of similar price bracket ( say Nikon D5000 ).

People seems to conclude on only seeing part of the story, we can all had our own opinion on something, but let's not made it sound like " it is so " in such wording. its just goind to draw yet irrational debate on the matter

--

• Franka -

Hi,

Wasn't the ideal format a registered name for 6 x 4·5 or 15 or 16 on on 120 film years ago? And 6 x 4·5 is 4:3 aspect ratio...

Regards, David

denniswms said:

the ideal format has long been recognized as 6x7.

Click to expand...

Really? Recognised by whom?

6x7 is just another format - used by those who are too lazy, haven't the courage, or can't afford 6x9.

MaxAppman said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't it seem that the 4/3 cameras coming out (EP-1, GF-1, GH-1) are all missing the point by being delivered in the wrong format? I mean SLR or not, they are SLR shaped and for all practical purposes, with a lens they're just slightly smaller SLRs.

If I wanted something the size and shape of say a GF-1 with a 6x lens, I'd just get an SLR. I hate when they talk about the body size and just pretend it doesn't need a lens.

Shouldn't these sensors be in cameras more like the TZ7 and G10 or even bridge cameras like the FZ-38 or SX20? To me it seems that they are missing their market entirely.

Click to expand...

It is certainly the case that a larger sensor in a fixed lens body should be better for a large part of the non system cameras market but, that larger sensor (in whatever format) brings with it additional costs and other physical elements are also larger (mechanical IS for example).

However there are a huge range of developments in this market at the moment and the buying public seem to favour high Mp, high soom ratio (12x) and low price.... as ever. Another buying sector is looking for the quality/size ratio and cameras like the Canon G10/G11 deliver in that area (as do some others).

The cameras you list are system bodies, capable of utilising hundreds of legacy lenses as well as their dedicated system ones. The marginal body size advantage is important to some, and the removal of the mirror mechanism permits the reduced lens mount registation which in turn enables the construction of much smaller wide angle lenses - just look at the 7-14mm from Panasonic.

If they aren't what you want then fine, I can understand that, but oveall I, and clearly others, think they have a market.

The question of whether manufacturers are missing another market has little to do with those cameras, or those specific manufacturers, at all.

--

• enjoy your camera equipment -

Hi,

I know I'm hair splitting but the name for the open system is "FourThirds" or, perhaps "Fourthirds" and the aspect ratio is 4:3 not 4/3 which means four divided by three or four shillings and threepence to some of us. OK?

Regards, David

To me, 4/3 is the natural way to write it more quickly. I also had some of my mathematical education before decimalisation, and I would read 4/3 as "four thirds", but "4:3" as "four to three", the latter allowing for cases like diluting one part of orange squash with five parts of water, where the result is not one-fifth or five of anything.