Reading mode: Light Dark

prediction about the OLYDAK 4/3" CCD DSLR

Go to last post
Z

zhoufang

Member
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
SG
I guess most of you here have heard of the rumour that OLYMPUS and KODAK are working togather http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021301kodakolympus.asp to build a SLR using a Kodak 4/3 inch 5 mp CCD http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02053101kaf5101c.asp

Although I still call it a rumour but it is actually a fact that such DLSR will be build http://www.dpreview.com/news/0105/01050101olympususconcept.asp and it is just the finer point that are not clear.

Some says it may come out in this years's Photokina. It will be the brightest new product if olympus can catch it (even if just a vapourware announcement).

I for one thinks that this format makes a lot of scence. The smaller image circle means faster longer lens can be build for cheaper.

here's my pridiction of the OLYDAK DSLR system

LENS (2X focal lenth multipliyer so a 25mm lens here has the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on 135 system)

focal length_ aperture _ positioning _ weight _ Price# remark
20mm-80mm _ f/3.5-4.5 come w body 300g US$200 4X zoom equl to 40-160mm
10mm-22mm _ f/2.4-2.8 wide zoom _ 450g US$450 may use as std. zoom
20mm-55mm _ f/2.4-2.8 std. zoom 400g US$400 light weight
50mm-150mm f/2.4-2.8 _ tele zoom _ 700g US$550 _ =
150mm-300mm f/2.0-2.8 _ Pro sports _ 3Kg US$4000 bring zoom into pro sports
45mm f/1.4 portrait_ 150g US$350 bokah comparable to 135 system

150-300mm f/2.0-2.8 will be announced togather with the pro body at a later time
  1. Price here is refering to the best street price (grey) after stabilise
4/3" CCD is 1/4 the area of 24X36. So the step here is as big as from medium format to 135 and the cost of producing lens should reduce by as much. I believe all these lenses will have a profitability similiar to Canon/Nikon lenses today.

BODY

consumer professional
CCD Size 4/3" 4/3"
pixel count 5MP_ 6MP
AF speed =D100 > D60 = D1X/D1H
AF assistant light reach_ 5m 10m
Image formats JPEG/TIFF JPEG/TIFF/RAW(14bit) RAW+JPEG
selectable color space 3 x sRGB 3 x sRGB AdobeRGB/ Lab RGB
burst rate 3FPS 6FPS
buffer deep 7 frames 25 frames
ISO speed_ 100-800 in 1 stop interval 100-3200 in 1/3 stop interval
shutter speeed 1/2000-16sec,B 1/8000-64sec,B,T
Flash sync speed 1/125sec 1/500sec
Exposure Compensation +-2EV in 1/2 EV interval +-4EV in 1/3 EV interval
Storage media xD/CF/MicroDrive xD/CF/MicroDrive
Built-in Flash GN12 meter No
water/dust resistance No Yes
connectivity USB2.0 USB2.0/Firewire
vertical grip optional build-in
Battery Li-ion 2 X Li-ion
Weight (inc. battery) 550g 850g
Street price US$1299 (w/ 28-80 f/35.-4.5) US$3500
availability 4th quarter 2002 3nd quarter 2003

The R&D cost will be so high that I can almost safetly say that the sales 1st generation body will not cover up (Olympus do not have a modern SLR system, so it has to research from the ground up). But US$1299 price tag of the consumer body still have some profit margin (R&D aside since it can be reused in he next gen body). Kodak will also be supplying the CCD for quite cheap I guess. The US$1299 price tag will be effectively competing with the current crop of 5MP DSLRs like Sony-717, it will of course draw customers away from D100, D60 and S2, esp if they have not heavily invested in one of the system. The optional lenses (expected to be near/match canon L lens quality) are very affordable relatively and I'll be that many ppl will buy the whole set (the 3 pro zoom and portrait lens together only cost as much as a 70-200/2.8 IS). For pro reporters the pro body should be enough to satisfy them since they are not short of MP or FPS, and smaller size will be welcomed. For pro sports shooter the 150mm-300mm f/2.0-2.8 (equl. to 300-600 on 135 system) will be fast enough and long enough for a soccer game, and its always better to have a zoom as long as image quality is acceptable.

If OLYMPUS & KODAK can make such a system as I predicted here and there is no major flue in the product, I think they can put Canon/Nikon to the position that Nikon have faced when Canon changed from FD to EOS, ie saying we will have 3 DSLR system of choice.

I myself may be selling my Canon L lenses to go into this system if all these will be true
 
zhoufang said:
here's my pridiction of the OLYDAK DSLR system

LENS (2X focal lenth multipliyer so a 25mm lens here has the same
angle of view as a 50mm lens on 135 system)
Click to expand...
My understanding is the whole idea of Oly and Kodka developing a whole new lines of lenses for this 4/3 CCD is so they can trash this multiplyer factor other D-SLRs have to deal with using existing SLR lenses. So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not 28mm wide.

--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Yeah, I think that you've got that right. The new Olydak will have no focal length multiplier.
Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:
here's my pridiction of the OLYDAK DSLR system

LENS (2X focal lenth multipliyer so a 25mm lens here has the same
angle of view as a 50mm lens on 135 system)
Click to expand...
My understanding is the whole idea of Oly and Kodka developing a
whole new lines of lenses for this 4/3 CCD is so they can trash
this multiplyer factor other D-SLRs have to deal with using
existing SLR lenses. So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not
28mm wide.

--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
Click to expand...
 
Brian said:
Yeah, I think that you've got that right. The new Olydak will have
no focal length multiplier.
Click to expand...
No, the original poster is correct. The lens you will use to get a "normal" field of view will say "24mm" on the barrel. If you want to convert to "35mm equiv", you will still have to multiply by 2. This is no different than with the E10/20: the lens is actually marked 9 - 35mm. The "35 - 140mm" is reported only because we are most familiar with what lenses do what on 35mm cameras.

Now the real difference is that instead of being a lens designed to give a wide angle FOV for a 35mm camera and using only the center of the image circle, it will be a smaller, faster, and hopefully less expensive lens. (And, hopefully they will offer something like an 8-17mm F2.0 zoom for the wide angle fans as well.)

--
Erik
 
Erik,

You explained this very well. I think the original poster shouldn't have used term "focal length multiplier" as it refers to different thing. It doesn't mean the multiplier used to get 35mm equivalent focal legth. I've understood that there is no focal length multiplier (which is bad for many people using DSLR's now) in OlyDak.
Erik Magnuson said:
No, the original poster is correct. The lens you will use to get a
"normal" field of view will say "24mm" on the barrel. If you want
to convert to "35mm equiv", you will still have to multiply by 2.
This is no different than with the E10/20: the lens is actually
marked 9 - 35mm. The "35 - 140mm" is reported only because we are
most familiar with what lenses do what on 35mm cameras.

Now the real difference is that instead of being a lens designed to
give a wide angle FOV for a 35mm camera and using only the center
of the image circle, it will be a smaller, faster, and hopefully
less expensive lens. (And, hopefully they will offer something like
an 8-17mm F2.0 zoom for the wide angle fans as well.)

--
Erik
Click to expand...
--
Juha Koskela
 
er, there would only be a multiplier if you can use lenses from 35mm cameras on the new body.

Otherwise the camera will use lenses whose focal length and coverage are designed for the 4/3 format.

Of course that measn you'll all have to relearn what focal length = standard, wideangle and telephoto but that is essentially no different from the E10 lens which is marked with true focal lengths, not 35mm equivalents...
JuhaK said:
Erik Magnuson said:
No, the original poster is correct. The lens you will use to get a
"normal" field of view will say "24mm" on the barrel. If you want
to convert to "35mm equiv", you will still have to multiply by 2.
This is no different than with the E10/20: the lens is actually
marked 9 - 35mm. The "35 - 140mm" is reported only because we are
most familiar with what lenses do what on 35mm cameras.

Now the real difference is that instead of being a lens designed to
give a wide angle FOV for a 35mm camera and using only the center
of the image circle, it will be a smaller, faster, and hopefully
less expensive lens. (And, hopefully they will offer something like
an 8-17mm F2.0 zoom for the wide angle fans as well.)

--
Erik
Click to expand...
--
Juha Koskela
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
No, the original poster is correct. The lens you will use to get a
"normal" field of view will say "24mm" on the barrel. If you want
to convert to "35mm equiv", you will still have to multiply by 2.
This is no different than with the E10/20: the lens is actually
marked 9 - 35mm. The "35 - 140mm" is reported only because we are
most familiar with what lenses do what on 35mm cameras.

Now the real difference is that instead of being a lens designed to
give a wide angle FOV for a 35mm camera and using only the center
of the image circle, it will be a smaller, faster, and hopefully
less expensive lens. (And, hopefully they will offer something like
an 8-17mm F2.0 zoom for the wide angle fans as well.)
Click to expand...
That is not the impression I got from this article ...
http://www.photoreporter.com/2002/08-15/features/the_way_it_is.html

The article seems to be saying the new lenses' focal length is for the 4/3 sensor. It is not going to be a 35mm lens covering a 4/3 sensor, hence no multiplier, no mm conversion. Multiplier is only required when you slap a 35mm lens over a smaller sensor. In this case you arent doing that hence what you see is what you get, because now we are talking about 4/3 lenses on a 4/3 sensor, not a 35mm lenses on a 4/3 sensor.

--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Beth wrote:

My thought is that they had better have more than a camera in a case to show for all the time that has elapsed between the announcement of the Olydak and this camera announcement! If the delay to production is very large, I think they will bleed more potential Oly customers to other brands. Let's hope that doesn't happen!
Jón Ragnarsson said:
Well, I have no reason to either doubt or support your predictions,
but this is what I think we will see on the show:

E10-style body in a glass case, with 2-3 lenses. And not much more.
Of course that will give us plenty to speculate about.
Olympus has been known to tease us with this look-but-don't-touch
method before:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/9903/99032201olymorepics.asp

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/
Click to expand...
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
 
Jimmy Chen said:
The article seems to be saying the new lenses' focal length is for
the 4/3 sensor.
Click to expand...
Right. But because the 4/3" sensor is about 22mm diagonal, the "normal" lens is going to be somewhere around 22 to 24mm. (While 35mm film has a 43mm diagonal, 50mm is considered normal. Perhaps because it's a nice round number?)
Jimmy Chen said:
. Multiplier is only
required when you slap a 35mm lens over a smaller sensor.
Click to expand...
No. A multiplier is used because we use the focal lengths for 35mm as the "de-facto" standard for comparing lenses between formats. The field of view for a given focal length depends on the image area. Think about it: a 50mm lens is a long telephoto on the E-20, a "portrait telephoto" for a 4/3 sensor, normal for 35mm film, moderately wide angle for 6x6 film and very wide for a 4x5 camera. It might be better if we used degrees of view as the common standard but we don't.

There are 3 issues with using 35mm lenses with a smaller sensor:

1. The lens is potentially somewhat larger and heavier than it needs to be. This is most critical for wide angles - so much so that it's difficult to build lenses

2. People who have only (or mainly) used 35mm just are too set in their ways to remember that focal length is NOT the same as field of view.

3. People who want to shoot both digital and film using the same bodies have to carry more lenses if they want to cover the same FOV range on both.

--
Erik
 
Jimmy Chen said:
My understanding is the whole idea of Oly and Kodka developing a
whole new lines of lenses for this 4/3 CCD is so they can trash
this multiplyer factor other D-SLRs have to deal with using
existing SLR lenses. So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not
28mm wide.
Click to expand...
Maybe I can try to state in a different way what Erik M. and DMillier have tried to say elsewhere in this thread.

The "multiplier" is not a physical effect. It's just a mathematical factor that allows us to know what lens focal length will produce the same field of view on different sizes of film or CCD. The field of view is the amount of the scene in front of you that will be captured on the sensor -- i.e. a wide panoramic vista or a narrow angle view like that produced by binoculars.

When you take a 50mm lens designed, say, for the Canon EOS system and place it on a D60 it does not "become" an 80mm lens (50mm x 1.6 "multiplier"). It just produces the same field of view as an 80mm lens would on a 35mm camera. Nothing about the lens changes, especially not its focal length. The "focal length multiplier" is really a field of view translator. So, in your statement here:
Jimmy Chen said:
So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not
28mm wide.
Click to expand...
you're confused. In order for the Olydak to produce the same field of view that a 14mm lens produces on 35mm film, the Olympus lens will have to have a focal length of 7mm.

If Olympus makes a 14mm lens for the Olydak it will produce the same field of view as a 28mm Canon lens produces on a Canon 35mm camera. It will not be "14mm wide." 14mm is not inherently a wide-angle focal length. It's wide-angle on 35mm film -- the frame of reference that so many of us are used to -- but it's moderately telephoto on very small sensors like those in consumer digicams.

So, whatever the advantages of the 4/3" format, the idea that it will "eliminate the focal length multiplier" is not one of them. When I own an Olydak -- and I'm hoping it's a good enough camera that I'll want one -- and I'm out shooting next to a 35mm film buddy, when he frames a shot with his 50mm lens, I'll have to use my 25mm lens to get the same shot. And if he says to me "Ahh, that scene looks about right for my 28" I'll have to use the 2X multiplier to translate that to "ahhh, then for me, a 14 will be just about right." And if we had a third buddy who was shooting with a Hasselblad (and it's much bigger film size) he'd have to use an approximately 2X multiplication factor in the other direction to figure out that a 50-60mm lens would give him roughly the same shot.
 
HI Beth
How are you?

Olympus don't usually show cameras in cases - their normal practice is to get them out pretty fast after photokina (November for the Exx cameras). I doubt they'll show anything unless they're nearly there.

But I think that getting it right is more important than getting it out fast. There's a huge number of photographers waiting in the wings to go digital, and another huge number owning the prosumer cameras who will upgrade to a good dslr.

After all, film cameras kept on selling - even though the ones of today really aren't very different from those of ten years ago.

kind regards
jono
Beth said:
Jón Ragnarsson said:
Well, I have no reason to either doubt or support your predictions,
but this is what I think we will see on the show:

E10-style body in a glass case, with 2-3 lenses. And not much more.
Of course that will give us plenty to speculate about.
Olympus has been known to tease us with this look-but-don't-touch
method before:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/9903/99032201olymorepics.asp

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/
Click to expand...
--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Hi Eamon

You're rather missing the point here - the focal length multiplier is relevant for canon and nikon as the lenses are designed for a sensor area (film) larger than the actual sensor area - it's more accurately called an fov crop.

The olydak won't exhibit this at all, as the lenses are designed for the sensor.

You are right that the actual focal length will have an equivalent in 35mm, but this is not what is referred to with respect to the fov crop in 35mm dslr cameras.

kind regards
jono slack
Eamon Hickey said:
Jimmy Chen said:
My understanding is the whole idea of Oly and Kodka developing a
whole new lines of lenses for this 4/3 CCD is so they can trash
this multiplyer factor other D-SLRs have to deal with using
existing SLR lenses. So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not
28mm wide.
Click to expand...
Maybe I can try to state in a different way what Erik M. and
DMillier have tried to say elsewhere in this thread.

The "multiplier" is not a physical effect. It's just a mathematical
factor that allows us to know what lens focal length will produce
the same field of view on different sizes of film or CCD. The field
of view is the amount of the scene in front of you that will be
captured on the sensor -- i.e. a wide panoramic vista or a narrow
angle view like that produced by binoculars.

When you take a 50mm lens designed, say, for the Canon EOS system
and place it on a D60 it does not "become" an 80mm lens (50mm x 1.6
"multiplier"). It just produces the same field of view as an 80mm
lens would on a 35mm camera. Nothing about the lens changes,
especially not its focal length. The "focal length multiplier" is
really a field of view translator. So, in your statement here:
peripheralfocus said:
So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not
28mm wide.
Click to expand...
you're confused. In order for the Olydak to produce the same field
of view that a 14mm lens produces on 35mm film, the Olympus lens
will have to have a focal length of 7mm.

If Olympus makes a 14mm lens for the Olydak it will produce the
same field of view as a 28mm Canon lens produces on a Canon 35mm
camera. It will not be "14mm wide." 14mm is not inherently a
wide-angle focal length. It's wide-angle on 35mm film -- the frame
of reference that so many of us are used to -- but it's moderately
telephoto on very small sensors like those in consumer digicams.

So, whatever the advantages of the 4/3" format, the idea that it
will "eliminate the focal length multiplier" is not one of them.
When I own an Olydak -- and I'm hoping it's a good enough camera
that I'll want one -- and I'm out shooting next to a 35mm film
buddy, when he frames a shot with his 50mm lens, I'll have to use
my 25mm lens to get the same shot. And if he says to me "Ahh, that
scene looks about right for my 28" I'll have to use the 2X
multiplier to translate that to "ahhh, then for me, a 14 will be
just about right." And if we had a third buddy who was shooting
with a Hasselblad (and it's much bigger film size) he'd have to use
an approximately 2X multiplication factor in the other direction to
figure out that a 50-60mm lens would give him roughly the same shot.
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Jono Slack said:
Hi Eamon
You're rather missing the point here - the focal length multiplier
is relevant for canon and nikon as the lenses are designed for a
sensor area (film) larger than the actual sensor area - it's more
accurately called an fov crop.

The olydak won't exhibit this at all, as the lenses are designed
for the sensor.
Click to expand...
The biggest shortcoming of using shorter focal length lenses to cover the same relative image area is the increased depth of field. Many photographers love the shallow depth of field that comes with a fast lens, but the shorter the focal length, the less the effect.

All this speculation and yet the biggest question for me is if Olympus can design a fast, high performance autofocus system. Without something a lot better than they've delivered to-date, there won't be much interest from pros who shoot action and wildlife.
 
DPReview
Jono Slack said:
Hi Eamon
You're rather missing the point here - the focal length multiplier
is relevant for canon and nikon as the lenses are designed for a
sensor area (film) larger than the actual sensor area - it's more
accurately called an fov crop.

The olydak won't exhibit this at all, as the lenses are designed
for the sensor.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Well, obviously I either failed to communicate my point or I am failing to see what you folks mean. But, with all due respect, Jono, your statement above doesn't help me :-) So, let me try a different method and ask you to clarify what you mean.

What, specifically, is it that the Olympus won't exhibit?

A 14mm lens on the Olydak -- no matter what sensor size it was designed to cover -- will yield the same field of view as a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera -- about 65 degrees on the horizontal axis. As regards field of view, it will behave exactly the same way a Canon EOS 14mm lens mounted on the Olydak would behave. So, to my mind, this means that the Olympus suffers from the same "FOV crop" as any other DSLR with a sensor smaller than 35mm.

Let me ask the question in a slightly different way: How is the Olydak's FOV behavior different from what a Canon EOS-based DSLR with a 4/3" sensor would do with Canon EOS lenses? In both cases, a 14mm lens would produce the same angle of view as a 28mm lens on 35mm cameras produces -- about 65 degrees horizontally. And in both cases, to achieve the field of view of a 14mm lens on 35mm film, you'd have to use a 7mm lens. In both cases, if you are used to making lens choices by thinking of your focal lengths in 35mm terms -- i.e. "this looks like a good scene for my 28mm lens" -- you will have to do a mental conversion to find the equivalent focal length in the 4/3" format -- 14mm, in this case.

Maybe it's the concept of image circle -- sometimes called angle of coverage -- that's causing this confusion. It is true that the Canon EOS 14mm lens will throw a larger image circle than the Olydak 14mm lens presumably will, but that's a completely different optical concept than angle of view/field of view. The size of the image circle thrown by the lens has no effect on the field of view. Field of view is determined by lens focal length combined with the image format only. The size of the image circle is a matter of design -- it can be different for lenses of the same focal length -- and it matters if you can move the sensor around within the image circle, as you can do with view cameras. But two lenses of the same focal length that throw different sized image circles still produce the same field of view with any given image format. (Assuming that both throw image circles that are at least large enough to cover the image format.)

Because Olympus will be able to design lens for the Olydak that throw smaller image circles than do lenses designed for 35mm cameras, there may be a potential savings in size, weight, and expense. That is an advantage of designing lenses specifically for the 4/3" format. But there is no difference in FOV behavior.

So, the same basic question one more time: In regards to field of view, what is it that you will be able to do differently with the Olydak compared to a 35mm film based system using a 4/3" sensor?

If I get time, I'll draw some pictures today that illustrate these concepts graphically and post them somewhere. Maybe somebody else knows where such illustrations already exist? I searched last night but couldn't find any.
 
Hi There
BJN said:
Jono Slack said:
Hi Eamon
You're rather missing the point here - the focal length multiplier
is relevant for canon and nikon as the lenses are designed for a
sensor area (film) larger than the actual sensor area - it's more
accurately called an fov crop.

The olydak won't exhibit this at all, as the lenses are designed
for the sensor.
Click to expand...
The biggest shortcoming of using shorter focal length lenses to
cover the same relative image area is the increased depth of field.
Many photographers love the shallow depth of field that comes with
a fast lens, but the shorter the focal length, the less the effect.
Click to expand...
Well, this is a double edged sword - for some shots (macros especially) a larger depth of field is a positive bonus - personally I feel that those that love small dof have been making a virtue of necessity, and that a decent compromise between the huge dof of the prosumer cameras, and the tiny dof of the 35mm would be just perfect!
BJN said:
All this speculation and yet the biggest question for me is if
Olympus can design a fast, high performance autofocus system.
Without something a lot better than they've delivered to-date,
there won't be much interest from pros who shoot action and
wildlife.
Click to expand...
Quite agree here with respect to sport - and I think this is possibly a problem with smaller focal length cameras. I've owned several digicams, and the Autofocus on the Exx cameras seem to me to be much better than that on most of the other prosumer cameras.

But I've seen lots and lots of fabulous wildlife shots taken with the Exx cameras - the extra depth of field is a bonus here, and lighter long focal length lenses will also be a big bonus.

kind regards
jono slack

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Hi Eamon

Well - the 'magnification factor' 'fov crop' are terms which in general parlance have been coined to describe the effect of using a lens designed for one sensor size with another.

the actual relationship between the focal length and the field of view will obviously vary between the olydak and the '35mm' dslr cameras, in just the same way as it does between medium format cameras and 35mm film cameras.

'equivalent focal lengths' seem rather unnecessary to me, but so be it.

I completely understand what you are saying, but you are describing the relationship between lenses of different focal lengths with different sensors, but when others are talking of the magnification factor they are describing the relationship between lenses of the SAME focal length with different size sensors.

Basically, it seems to me you are trying to change the useage of a term from it's 'common' useage - which will require another term to be coined to define the horrible kludge which the current crop of dslr cameras exhibit, and which the OLYDAK will not (unless of course you are using the mythical adaptor to connect to the OM lenses!).

If the olydak appears, it will be the second dslr with interchangeable lenses which will not require you to pay for, and carry, large quantities of glass and metal which you are not using.

I think it's rather like buying an 8 cylinder car, where all 8 cylinders use fuel, but only 4 transmit power to the wheels!

kind regards
jono slack
Eamon Hickey said:
Jono Slack said:
Hi Eamon
You're rather missing the point here - the focal length multiplier
is relevant for canon and nikon as the lenses are designed for a
sensor area (film) larger than the actual sensor area - it's more
accurately called an fov crop.

The olydak won't exhibit this at all, as the lenses are designed
for the sensor.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Well, obviously I either failed to communicate my point or I
am failing to see what you folks mean. But, with all due respect,
Jono, your statement above doesn't help me :-) So, let me try a
different method and ask you to clarify what you mean.

What, specifically, is it that the Olympus won't exhibit?

A 14mm lens on the Olydak -- no matter what sensor size it was
designed to cover -- will yield the same field of view as a 28mm
lens on a 35mm camera -- about 65 degrees on the horizontal axis.
As regards field of view, it will behave exactly the same way a
Canon EOS 14mm lens mounted on the Olydak would behave. So, to my
mind, this means that the Olympus suffers from the same "FOV crop"
as any other DSLR with a sensor smaller than 35mm.

Let me ask the question in a slightly different way: How is the
Olydak's FOV behavior different from what a Canon EOS-based DSLR
with a 4/3" sensor would do with Canon EOS lenses? In both cases, a
14mm lens would produce the same angle of view as a 28mm lens on
35mm cameras produces -- about 65 degrees horizontally. And in both
cases, to achieve the field of view of a 14mm lens on 35mm film,
you'd have to use a 7mm lens. In both cases, if you are used to
making lens choices by thinking of your focal lengths in 35mm terms
-- i.e. "this looks like a good scene for my 28mm lens" -- you will
have to do a mental conversion to find the equivalent focal length
in the 4/3" format -- 14mm, in this case.

Maybe it's the concept of image circle -- sometimes called angle of
coverage -- that's causing this confusion. It is true that the
Canon EOS 14mm lens will throw a larger image circle than the
Olydak 14mm lens presumably will, but that's a completely different
optical concept than angle of view/field of view. The size of the
image circle thrown by the lens has no effect on the field of view.
Field of view is determined by lens focal length combined with the
image format only. The size of the image circle is a matter of
design -- it can be different for lenses of the same focal length
-- and it matters if you can move the sensor around within the
image circle, as you can do with view cameras. But two lenses of
the same focal length that throw different sized image circles
still produce the same field of view with any given image format.
(Assuming that both throw image circles that are at least large
enough to cover the image format.)

Because Olympus will be able to design lens for the Olydak that
throw smaller image circles than do lenses designed for 35mm
cameras, there may be a potential savings in size, weight, and
expense. That is an advantage of designing lenses specifically
for the 4/3" format. But there is no difference in FOV behavior.

So, the same basic question one more time: In regards to field of
view, what is it that you will be able to do differently with the
Olydak compared to a 35mm film based system using a 4/3" sensor?

If I get time, I'll draw some pictures today that illustrate these
concepts graphically and post them somewhere. Maybe somebody else
knows where such illustrations already exist? I searched last night
but couldn't find any.
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Jono Slack said:
Hi Eamon

Well - the 'magnification factor' 'fov crop' are terms which in
general parlance have been coined to describe the effect of using a
lens designed for one sensor size with another.
Click to expand...
Sure, but what I and others are trying to get across is that this is just the effect of changing image formats. That's all that's happening: the image format changes therefore the field of view of the lens changes. Doesn't matter whether the new sensor size is installed in a pre-existing camera body and used with pre-existing lenses or installed in a new camera body and used with new lenses. The effect on FOV is exactly the same. Calling it a "FOV crop" -- when it's what for a hundred and fifty years we called a change in image format -- is fine if it helps people understand what's happening, but dangerous if it leads them to false conclusions about new systems like the Olydak and to claims that "eliminating the FOV crop" is a benefit of the Olydak system. Which brings me to the rest of this onerously long and boring post, which I probably should've just trashed for everyone's benefit:
Jono Slack said:
the actual relationship between the focal length and the field of
view will obviously vary between the olydak and the '35mm' dslr
cameras, in just the same way as it does between medium format
cameras and 35mm film cameras.
Click to expand...
Yes. So, clearly you understand what's going on.
Jono Slack said:
If the olydak appears, it will be the second dslr with
interchangeable lenses which will not require you to pay for, and
carry, large quantities of glass and metal which you are not using.
Click to expand...
Yes. Here, finally, is a difference between the Olydak and film SLR systems converted to digital: the lenses may turn out to be smaller and cheaper. But that's the benefit. Simple: the lenses may turn out to be smaller and cheaper. If that's what people mean when they say "the FOV crop will be eliminated" "or the multiplying factor will be eliminated" then fine -- it's a mighty strange way to say "the lenses may be smaller and cheaper"-- but they're right. Unfortunately, the reason the lenses may be smaller and cheaper has nothing whatsoever to do with field of view or the cropping thereof. Further, I don't think that's what people mean when they say "the FOV crop will be eliminated."

If you recall, my original post on this subject was in response to someone who said, "the whole idea of Oly and Kodka developing a whole new lines of lenses for this 4/3 CCD so they can trash this multiplyer factor other D-SLRs have to deal with using existing SLR lenses. So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not 28mm wide." I took this to mean that the person quoted thinks that a 14mm lens on the Olydak will have the same field of view as a 14mm lens on a 35mm camera, which is, of course, just wrong as I've already said ad nauseum. I he meant something simpler: i.e. that users won't have to remember that their 14mm lens has a different angle of view on their DSLR than it does on their film camera, I'm mystified as to why that would be an advantage. Users will still have to learn what 14mm looks like on their Olydak -- and it won't be what 14mm looks like on their 35mm film camera -- just as they have to learn what 14mm looks like on their film-based DSLR. Why is it harder to do this with a film-based DSLR than with the Olydak? I just don't see any difference there.

The Olydak 14mm lens may be smaller and cheaper, and that would be great. But if it is, it will be due to the fact that the designers do not have to produce an image circle big enough to cover 35mm film; and perhaps because they can use a smaller lens mount diameter; and, less likely but perhaps still possible, because they can use a smaller back focus distance. None of those factors is related in any way to field of view and the changes in field of view -- or "cropping", if you prefer -- that occur when you change the image format behind a given lens focal length.

So why don't we say "the lenses may be smaller and cheaper because they don't have to be designed to cover the 35mm image format" instead of "the FOV crop will be eliminated."

Okay, I'm done. I can't think of any better way to say what I'm trying to say.
 
Hi Eamon

So it would seem that we both agree that we both understand what we're talking about!

The lenses will be smaller and cheaper - as you say, because they are being made for a smaller sensor.

Nikon could also make smaller and cheaper lenses for the D100, by making them to match the sensor size (in which case, just like the OLYDAK, there would be no FOV crop). There would still, however, be a magnification factor within your terms.

i.e. a 28mm lens (real focal length) matched to the Nikon sensor would STILL produce the 35mm equivalent of 42mm. BUT it would no longer exhibit the fov crop exhibited by a lens designed for a 24X36mm sensor. It would be noticeably smaller and cheaper to make however.

In this sense, the 14mm OLYDAK lens (real focal length) would still create an 'equivalent' fov of 28mm in 35mm terms - but it wouldn't exhibit the fov crop.

This, I think, clearly demonstrates the difference between my 'common parlance' definition, and your definition.

With respect to Nikon and Canon, there is no advantage* of using the existing 35mm lenses over matched lenses - Unless, of course, you wish to use them with film as well. But there are considerable advantages of matched lenses.

Except of course the resulting depth of field issues.

hey ho -

kind regards
jono slack
Eamon Hickey said:
Jono Slack said:
Hi Eamon

Well - the 'magnification factor' 'fov crop' are terms which in
general parlance have been coined to describe the effect of using a
lens designed for one sensor size with another.
Click to expand...
Sure, but what I and others are trying to get across is that this
is just the effect of changing image formats. That's all that's
happening: the image format changes therefore the field of view of
the lens changes. Doesn't matter whether the new sensor size is
installed in a pre-existing camera body and used with pre-existing
lenses or installed in a new camera body and used with new lenses.
The effect on FOV is exactly the same. Calling it a "FOV crop" --
when it's what for a hundred and fifty years we called a change in
image format -- is fine if it helps people understand what's
happening, but dangerous if it leads them to false conclusions
about new systems like the Olydak and to claims that "eliminating
the FOV crop" is a benefit of the Olydak system. Which brings me to
the rest of this onerously long and boring post, which I probably
should've just trashed for everyone's benefit:
peripheralfocus said:
the actual relationship between the focal length and the field of
view will obviously vary between the olydak and the '35mm' dslr
cameras, in just the same way as it does between medium format
cameras and 35mm film cameras.
Click to expand...
Yes. So, clearly you understand what's going on.
peripheralfocus said:
If the olydak appears, it will be the second dslr with
interchangeable lenses which will not require you to pay for, and
carry, large quantities of glass and metal which you are not using.
Click to expand...
Yes. Here, finally, is a difference between the Olydak and film SLR
systems converted to digital: the lenses may turn out to be smaller
and cheaper. But that's the benefit. Simple: the lenses may turn
out to be smaller and cheaper. If that's what people mean when they
say "the FOV crop will be eliminated" "or the multiplying factor
will be eliminated" then fine -- it's a mighty strange way to say
"the lenses may be smaller and cheaper"-- but they're right.
Unfortunately, the reason the lenses may be smaller and cheaper has
nothing whatsoever to do with field of view or the cropping
thereof. Further, I don't think that's what people mean when they
say "the FOV crop will be eliminated."

If you recall, my original post on this subject was in response to
someone who said, "the whole idea of Oly and Kodka developing a
whole new lines of lenses for this 4/3 CCD so they can trash this
multiplyer factor other D-SLRs have to deal with using existing SLR
lenses. So their 14mm wide will mean 14mm wide, not 28mm wide." I
took this to mean that the person quoted thinks that a 14mm lens on
the Olydak will have the same field of view as a 14mm lens on a
35mm camera, which is, of course, just wrong as I've already said
ad nauseum. I he meant something simpler: i.e. that users won't
have to remember that their 14mm lens has a different angle of view
on their DSLR than it does on their film camera, I'm mystified as
to why that would be an advantage. Users will still have to learn
what 14mm looks like on their Olydak -- and it won't be what 14mm
looks like on their 35mm film camera -- just as they have to learn
what 14mm looks like on their film-based DSLR. Why is it harder to
do this with a film-based DSLR than with the Olydak? I just don't
see any difference there.

The Olydak 14mm lens may be smaller and cheaper, and that would be
great. But if it is, it will be due to the fact that the designers
do not have to produce an image circle big enough to cover 35mm
film; and perhaps because they can use a smaller lens mount
diameter; and, less likely but perhaps still possible, because they
can use a smaller back focus distance. None of those factors is
related in any way to field of view and the changes in field of
view -- or "cropping", if you prefer -- that occur when you change
the image format behind a given lens focal length.

So why don't we say "the lenses may be smaller and cheaper because
they don't have to be designed to cover the 35mm image format"
instead of "the FOV crop will be eliminated."

Okay, I'm done. I can't think of any better way to say what I'm
trying to say.
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top