Are 4/3 Cameras the Wrong Format?

AnandaSim said:

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"

Click to expand...

Yes but it has a much BIGGER "sensor" than 4/3. And there is one with a zoom also, although only 2x.

AnandaSim said:

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

Click to expand...

The fuji has a bigger "sensor" and a much faster lens.
The design goals seem to be for per pixel sharpness right across the frame.

I'd take some corner softness wide open for a useable pocket camera with a larger sensor and fast lens.

Plenty of other examples of why even 35mm FF doesn't have to be in a large camera.

Andrew

Have a look at Tamrac's fit chart:

http://tamrac.com/digital_SLR_fit_chart.pdf

Tell me how many bags you see that do accept the GH1 and don't accept the Rebel line from Canon.

The difference in size is so small as to be immaterial.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

Have a look at Tamrac's fit chart:

http://tamrac.com/digital_SLR_fit_chart.pdf

Tell me how many bags you see that do accept the GH1 and don't accept the Rebel line from Canon.

The difference in size is so small as to be immaterial.

Click to expand...

Oh . . . I don't know.

Now, I like bigger cameras myself, but there is a significant difference in size between the DRebels, other entry DSLR's and the G1/GH1.

Here are a couple of shots I took of the G1 next to a couple of other DSLR's:

Pansonic G1 and Nikon D40:



Olympus E520 and Panasonic G1:



Granted, it is not like the difference in size is like a DSLR vs. a slim pocket camera . . .

--
J. D.
Colorado

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

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Granted, it is not like the difference in size is like a DSLR vs. a slim pocket camera . . .

Click to expand...

Right - those differences are extremely small, and irrelevant to any practical real-world use case.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

When you say 'people' you mean 'people who already have SLRs and are willing to lug SLRs around'.

Sure, those people might find it an upgrade. But for anyone else, its just another SLR...

Iforgetwhat8was4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

When you ask a question, you don't need to be told that you 'horribly' don't know the answer. When you are missing something you are missing it, that's why you ask. You're not asking for rudeness or arrogance, which is never in order.

AnandaSim said:

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"

Click to expand...

No worries. Let's just keep it polite

Yep, I have seen some of the threads that run around here and nope don't want to go there. Anyway, no offense taken...

AnandaSim said:

AnandaSim 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.

AnandaSim 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.

AnandaSim 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.

Click to expand...

Actually this is my point as well. Look at the range of sizes of cameras that all have basically the same size sensor. It is only logical that a G11 which is miles larger than say a canon SD780, has in all relative terms the same size sensor. A 15 or 20x compact zoom is the same story. They should definitely be able to squeeze a larger sensor in that thing. It's twice as big as an SD series...

AnandaSim said:

AnandaSim 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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. What the masses are really screaming for is an ultrazoom or smaller really, with a larger sensor than currently available. So the masses will never buy a 4/3 camera. It will be a niche camera at best. Wasted R&D IMO that would have been better spent on a larger sensor compact.

AnandaSim said:

AnandaSim 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.

AnandaSim 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...

Click to expand...

Again, me and the rest of the 'masses' which is basically the camera buying world. Remember this is not the few techies on dpreview I'm talking about ;-)

AnandaSim said:

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

Click to expand...

Please clarify. When you say can only match this lens. Your point in comparing GF1 to 4/3?

AnandaSim said:

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.

AnandaSim 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!

Click to expand...

Exactly, R&D spent on the wrong niche.
Should have gone into the products that sell 1000x more volume.

But they just assume the masses won't pay more for a premium compact, they'll just 'step up' to an SLR. But the point they, and I'm afraid you are missing in my argument is that an SLR for most people on the planet is not a step up. Sure it does a better job, but who can be bothered? Well I mean outside of dpreview, the 'masses' mind you...

AnandaSim said:

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Thanks again for your responses.

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...

Now you're talking!

ljfinger said:

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Granted, it is not like the difference in size is like a DSLR vs. a slim pocket camera . . .

Click to expand...

Right - those differences are extremely small, and irrelevant to any practical real-world use case.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

Yep, my point exactly.

So then you line up an S90 and a G11 for example, one is twice as large as the other, but with the same size sensor. Then you throw in an Sx20 and it's a monster compared to the G11 and with an even smaller sensor. Now these are the kinds of cameras that account for 90% of camera sales, and with a huge variance of size between them, yet all with relatively the same size sensor. What gives? If one can put a 1/1.7 in an S90, one should definitely be able to put a much larger sensor in something the size of a G11.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sx20is%2Ccanon_g11%2Ccanon_s90&show=all

Then there is this huge gap in sensor size up to the 4/3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

And absolutely nothing in between.

Put a G11 next to an S90 and it's hard not to see that a 4/3 or at least something in between could be done. Sure seems like the manufacturers are missing the market.

nickoly said:

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.

Click to expand...

Recognized by magazine editors, labs, "The 6×7 frame enlarges almost exactly to 8×10 inch paper, for which reason its proponents call it "ideal format"." PhotoFieldImaging.

Wikipedia Encyclopedia : "The 6×9 frame has the same aspect ratio as the standard 36×24 mm frame of 135 film. The 6×7 frame enlarges almost exactly to 8×10 inch paper, for which reason its proponents call it "ideal format"."

And then of course there is Ken Rockwell:

" Also called 2-1/4 x 2-3/4, 6 x 7 and "Ideal Format."

"Ideal Format" was coined by a marketeer during the great medium format wars of the 1960s and 70s. It refers to the fact that you can pull an 8 x 10, 11 x 14 or 16 x 20" etc. print with almost exact cropping without losing any of the film image. By comparison, Ansel had to crop off some of the top and bottom from his 6 x 6 images to print an 8 x 10, and likewise folks using 6 x 9 have to crop off some of the sides.

6 x 7 is my favorite all around format. "

How many more examples would you like?

the "masses" as if they all fall in with your line of thinking. Camera makers, for the most part, crank out cameras that people will buy. Some people buy DSLRs, some buy bridge super zooms, and others want a compact for any number of reasons. Those who want it all in one camera, that elusive perfect camera, will be waiting a long, long time.

MaxAppman said:

Iforgetwhat8was4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

When you ask a question, you don't need to be told that you 'horribly' don't know the answer. When you are missing something you are missing it, that's why you ask. You're not asking for rudeness or arrogance, which is never in order.

Click to expand...

OK, you "terribly" don't know the answer. Better?

Roger99 said:

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)

Click to expand...

The ratio has nothing to do with the lens size (MF often has a 4:3 ratio as well, for instance). What's important is that the size of the chip. Four-Thirds chips have a diagonal of 21.6 mm (very close to half of the 35-mm diagonal of 43.3 mm). Compact cameras have lenses designed to work with chips with a 7 - 8 mm diagonal. If you put a Four-Thirds chip behind these lenses, you'll only illuminate a small fraction of the sensor. In order to fully illuminate the sensor, you need larger lenses: for the equivalent of the FZ 38, you would need a 13.5 - 243 mm lens, which would be rather large! The equivalent of the G10 would be a 14 - 70 mm lens, which would a little larger than the Oly or Panasonic kit zooms.

Robert

Ever actually handled an EP1? Regardless of what measurements say, it looks and feels substantially smaller than a dslr when you actually carry it around and use it. Mainly, it's thinner, even with the zoom lens extended. With the zoom retracted or a pancake lens installed, it's quite a bit thinner than even a very small dslr, like an E620.

Granted, the Panny G1 and GH1 are a dslr style, and aren't much smaller than the smallest dslr's. However, they do have a twist/tilt LCD, something that most small dslr's do not have. Handy option.

The EP1 and GF1 have one other attractive feature: they don't have the 'pro wannabe' look of the low end dslr's. They look like a P&S. That's a big advantage to some people, who would prefer to maintain a low profile while getting dslr image quality. In fact, that's a primary interest I have in the EP1 - it doesn't draw as much attention to itself or the person holding it.

In any case, the EP1 is selling well, so some people see the advantage of this design.

There are three fixed lens cameras on the market that do combine larger sensor with a compact package: Sigma DP1, DP2, and now Leica X1. The Sigmas have a sensor about the size of a 4/3 sensor, the Leica has an APS/C size sensor.

However, their price is correspondingly high. The Sigmas have been a slow seller, despite their rich color rendition and small size, the $800 price is a common reason cited for this. The Leica probably won't set any sales records either with its rather hefty price, and it's not exactly tiny. Apparently, the majority of people feel that if they're going to invest that much in a camera, they want replaceable lenses, or at the least a good zoom lens and not fixed focal length.

Keep in mind that there are problems getting a larger sensor to work in a small package, as the rear lens element is very close to the sensor to keep it compact. This means bending the light at an angle to fully cover the larger sensor. Unlike film, digital sensors don't like light at an angle. This is a primary reason one doesn't find large sensors in a small, inexpensive package like we had with film. It's expensive to make them.

As Sigma is seeing with the DP, and Sony learned with the R1, expensive fixed lens cameras don't sell well, even if they are very good.

Surely the "ideal format" is 1:1.

That way you maximise the area of the sensor that is used. Lenses project a circular image, so the diameter of the circle equals the diagonal of the square sensor.

Also no problems with having to rotate the camera for "portrait" or "landscape" shots. Just crop to the aspect ratio you need at the print stage.
--

TrapperJohn said:

To Err is Human, To really foul things up you need a computer.

Click to expand...

denniswms said:

almost exactly to 8×10 inch paper, for which reason its proponents call it "ideal format"."/ PhotoFieldImaging.

Click to expand...

denniswms said:

"Ideal Format" was coined by a marketeer , Ansel had to crop off some of the top and bottom from his 6 x 6 images

Click to expand...

So... the ideal picture format comes about becausae a marketeer finds it almost fits a sheet of writing paper. Is that what you are trying to tell us?

I'm sure Mr Adams lost a lot of sleep over this...

nickoly said:

denniswms said:

almost exactly to 8×10 inch paper, for which reason its proponents call it "ideal format"."/ PhotoFieldImaging.

Click to expand...

nickoly said:

"Ideal Format" was coined by a marketeer , Ansel had to crop off some of the top and bottom from his 6 x 6 images

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

nickoly said:

nickoly wrote:

So... the ideal picture format comes about becausae a marketeer finds it almost fits a sheet of writing paper. Is that what you are trying to tell us?

I'm sure Mr Adams lost a lot of sleep over this...

Click to expand...

I thought Ansel Adams shot on mostly 4x5 film . . . and printed 16x20's!

Which, ironically enough, is the exact same format as an 8x10 sheet of paper.

--
J. D.
Colorado



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

MusicDoctorDJ said:

I thought Ansel Adams shot on mostly 4x5 film .

Click to expand...

I think you're right. When I shot a lot of 4x5, I found 10x8 sheets very useful - for contact prints. I don't recall ever confining myself to 16x20 prints just because it was a perfect, not almost, multiple of the negative. Indeed, I recall that one of the best features of 16x20 paper was that it afforded you a handy test strip on the long side.

MaxAppman said:

No worries. Let's just keep it polite

Click to expand...

Fine with me. It wasn't intended to be rude. I am not normally.

maxappman said:

Actually this is my point as well. Look at the range of sizes of cameras that all have basically the same size sensor. It is only logical that a G11 which is miles larger than say a canon SD780, has in all relative terms the same size sensor. A 15 or 20x compact zoom is the same story. They should definitely be able to squeeze a larger sensor in that thing. It's twice as big as an SD series...

Click to expand...

I think the difference in our perspective is that I accept the present and you have expectations of what could be.

The G11 is bigger than the SD780. In my understanding, the G11 would have more room to fit bigger parts, more solidity mechanically, more elbow room for designers to produce a more robust, better performing machine. The SD780 (I don't know it but I am going on perception) is one of those made small, with lots of small parts, small lens. Is the max lens aperture the same? Does the G11 lens allow more light?

Not sure if we are speaking on the same lines.

maxappman said:

Exactly. What the masses are really screaming for is an ultrazoom or smaller really, with a larger sensor than currently available. So the masses will never buy a 4/3 camera. It will be a niche camera at best. Wasted R&D IMO that would have been better spent on a larger sensor compact.

Click to expand...

In your perception. In my perception, it is the current state of the science and engineering. They have in the MICRO 4/3 managed to remove the mirror box from the classic 4/3. That was a major step. Then they tried to shrink the lenses because of that. But so far, even with f/4 lenses, they have only managed to make that small zoom kit lens so small and it's by a trick - when you don't use it, it collapses. When you really use it, it extends like Pinnochio's nose. A non zoom lens, that pancake, they have made small and thin BUT, they cannot avoid colour fringing (I think) and curvature of straight lines - they have to use software to cover that up.

Both these lenses, the kit zoom and the pancake are smaller than regular DSLR lenses already but they cannot make the lenses so small like the SD870 - that's not because of R & D. R & D cannot bend reality. Reality right now is for that Micro 4/3 sensor size, they cannot bend light from an SD 870 lens to cover the whole Micro 4/3 sensor.

maxappman said:

maxappman said:

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

Click to expand...

Please clarify. When you say can only match this lens. Your point in comparing GF1 to 4/3?

Click to expand...

Sorry. Typing issue. What I intended to say was the GF-1 is a MICRO 4/3 and the Oly 620 DSLR is a regular 4/3. By R & D, they have made the GF-1 smaller than the Oly 620 - they have cut off the mirror. Because they have cut off the mirror, the lens referred to above is already smaller than a regular 10x zoom DSLR mirror.

But you don't think they have done enough. You think the GF-1 could be even smaller. Like the size of the Canon SD 870. What I am saying is that it's not R&D. They can't because of reality - the GF-1 sensor needs a lens of that size above. It cannot use the lens of the Canon SD 870.

maxappman said:

maxappman said:

Buy one of these:

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

But oh, dang! They have a small sensor!

Click to expand...

Exactly, R&D spent on the wrong niche.

Click to expand...

It's not R&D. The marketplace is competitive. The small camera segment has no dependence on legacy unlike interchangeable lens cameras. There is nothing stopping the makers from making a small compact camera with a MICRO 4/3 sensor in a body of the Canon SD870. Except that R&D cannot solve the problem that the lens of the SD 870 cannot project light to cover the MICRO 4/3 sensor.

maxappman said:

Should have gone into the products that sell 1000x more volume.
But they just assume the masses won't pay more for a premium compact,

Click to expand...

The masses WILL pay for a premium compact. That's what Sony relies on for their T series. That's what Canon relies on for their IXUS. That's what Panasonic relies on for the LX-3.

But the makers cannot fit an IXUS / T series / LX-3 lens on much less a 10x zoom onto a MICRO 4/3 sensor.

One market segment has vanished. That is the AUD 800 bridge ultrazoom with a sensor half the size of the MICRO 4/3. Here, they thnk that AUD 800 is too close to the entry level DSLR price to make an ultrazoom camera. BUT, such cameras are NOT POCKETABLE. They are definitely bigger than the GF-1

maxappman said:

Thanks again for your responses.

Click to expand...

Not a problem.
--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/

MaxAppman said:

ljfinger said:

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Granted, it is not like the difference in size is like a DSLR vs. a slim pocket camera . . .

Click to expand...

Right - those differences are extremely small, and irrelevant to any practical real-world use case.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

Yep, my point exactly.

So then you line up an S90 and a G11 for example, one is twice as large as the other, but with the same size sensor. Then you throw in an Sx20 and it's a monster compared to the G11 and with an even smaller sensor. Now these are the kinds of cameras that account for 90% of camera sales, and with a huge variance of size between them, yet all with relatively the same size sensor. What gives? If one can put a 1/1.7 in an S90, one should definitely be able to put a much larger sensor in something the size of a G11.

Click to expand...

For me, it's the 'travelability' of the kit that's the thing. When I'm actually taking photographs, I don't mind the camera hanging round my neck, but it would be good to have a high quality camera that fits nicely in a briefcase, which can be used for the photo opportunity that occurs while travelling, or for a photographic interlude in a trip which doesn't warrant carrying the full gear. Currently I use a Rebel and a superzoom for that purpose, and carry the body and lens separately in my briefcase. so as they don't make too big a bulge. The E-P1 or GF-1 gives the opportunity either to carry the camera with the lens mounted or to carry separately, but with even less of a bulge.

maxappman said:

Put a G11 next to an S90 and it's hard not to see that a 4/3 or at least something in between could be done. Sure seems like the manufacturers are missing the market.

Click to expand...

The most important size constraint is the depth, IMO. Take an APSC standard zoom, and it's something more than 100mm front element to image plane. mFT reduces that to about 75mm (so not scaling very well). 2/3" might get it down to 50mm. With the screen and so on behind the sensor, that's still a 60mm thick camera, not very pocketable. It's only down at the 1/1.7" kind of sensor size that an adequate range zoom lens begins to be buildable in a camera shallow enough to pocket. There doesn't seem to be much of a market for larger sensor cameras with the fixed and short FL necessary to make them pocketable.