Looks like 4/3 *IS* a "Crop"

Judging by their press release here: http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Until they show me a good 15mm wide equivalent lens (making it 7.5 mm in 35mm) without Barrel distortion issues, then I'll not be convinced otherwise.

Vince

Group Idiot said:

Judging by their press release here:
http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it
indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV
crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

--

But what do I know? I'm just a servant to the ancient Sumerian god, Gozer the Gozerian. Keymaster

E10 - Tcon 300s - Tcon 14B - Wcon 08B - DPS9000 - RM CB1 - Tamrac Expedetion 5 - Vivitar 285hv - Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer - Hoya Polarizer filter - Kenko UV filter - B+W 25% ND filter - more to come!

One thing to notice in the Oly propaganda papers is that the image circle made by the lens is the same size as the sensor. My interpretation of a crop is if the image circle made by the lens is larger than the sensor and they take a portion, or a crop, of the that image circle.

If your interpretation is correct, I guess then that 35 mm is just a crop of medium format. What a bummer.

Group Idiot said:

Judging by their press release here:
http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it
indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV
crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

TrentMcD said:

One thing to notice in the Oly propaganda papers is that the image
circle made by the lens is the same size as the sensor. My
interpretation of a crop is if the image circle made by the lens is
larger than the sensor and they take a portion, or a crop, of the
that image circle.

Click to expand...

Even with film, hasn't it always been that the image circle is always larger than the neg/trans frame, to avoid distortions near the edges? Aren't actually talking about DEGREES of crop here?

TrentMcD said:

If your interpretation is correct, I guess then that 35 mm is just
a crop of medium format. What a bummer.

Click to expand...

And my camera is a crop of my eyes.

--
markE
pbase supporter

• Oly E-20, LiPo, TCON300, TCON-14B, WCON, FL-40, Wacom Graphire Canine Stunner II, Epson PS 820,

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-Dorothea Lange

-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/natural_world

TrentMcD said:

One thing to notice in the Oly propaganda papers is that the image
circle made by the lens is the same size as the sensor. My
interpretation of a crop is if the image circle made by the lens is
larger than the sensor and they take a portion, or a crop, of the
that image circle.

Click to expand...

That would be my interpretation as well. Unfortunately Oly seems to be giving a number of conflicting signals here. In the actual press release, it would seem to clearly indicate that they're using (or at least referencing) lenses designed specifically for 35mm film (hence the "300mm becomes 600mm").

I'm assuming it's the same release published on DPR last week, which also indicates their figures are based upon a 2X FOV crop of 35mm lenses -- particularly when looking at their 300/2.8 lens pictured.

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Maybe. I read it as them giving equivalents to make it sound better, but I might be optimistic. I’ll reserve my opinion (though lean towards it really being a new standard) until a unit is out and people like Phil have had a look at it.

Group Idiot said:

TrentMcD said:

One thing to notice in the Oly propaganda papers is that the image
circle made by the lens is the same size as the sensor. My
interpretation of a crop is if the image circle made by the lens is
larger than the sensor and they take a portion, or a crop, of the
that image circle.

Click to expand...

That would be my interpretation as well. Unfortunately Oly seems to
be giving a number of conflicting signals here. In the actual press
release, it would seem to clearly indicate that they're using (or
at least referencing) lenses designed specifically for 35mm film
(hence the "300mm becomes 600mm").

I'm assuming it's the same release published on DPR last week,
which also indicates their figures are based upon a 2X FOV crop of
35mm lenses -- particularly when looking at their 300/2.8 lens
pictured.

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

TrentMcD said:

One thing to notice in the Oly propaganda papers is that the image
circle made by the lens is the same size as the sensor. My
interpretation of a crop is if the image circle made by the lens is
larger than the sensor and they take a portion, or a crop, of the
that image circle.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Three of the four lenses that Oly is showing appear to be full 35mm lenses, cropped to 4/3 system.

The 50mm f2.0 macro is a well known Oly Zuiko 35mm lens.

Every major lens manufacturer has a 300mm f2.8, that's a ubiquitious lens.

50-200 in the size they show is also common, either Oly's own 50-250, or their 60-200 (slightly modified).

The 14-52 is the only lens that is likely to be an actual 4/3 lens, made by increasing the zoom range of something like a common 18-35 for 35mm full frame, having a smaller image circle only in the 14-18mm range.

One lens does not a "system" make. The mount appears to be the good old 35mm Oly OM mount, in its autofocus configuration (remember the OM-77). Twice the diameter and twice the registration distance you'd need if it wasn't cropped. And a camera the size of a 35mm SLR.

TrentMcD said:

If your interpretation is correct, I guess then that 35 mm is just
a crop of medium format. What a bummer.

Click to expand...

Well, if most 35mm lenses could cover a medium format frame I'd agree with you.

Large format is large format.
Medium format is medium format.
35mm is 35mm.

All APS sized (1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x, and 1.7x) DSLRs from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Fuji are "cropped" 35mm, as is the 2x Olymous E-System.

(Nikon is about to ship their first "DX" lens that matches the 1.5x sensor, so at least there's a little bit of "uncropped" APS sized gear coming, but until they have a camera that doesn't waste size and weight on a full sized 35mm shutter, mirror, prism, and focusing screen, there really isn't an uncropped "DX system", either).

There have been sub 35mm SLRs with whole families of reduced coverage, reduced registration distance lenses. Canon and Nikon had APS SLRs. Pentax even had an interchangable lens 110 format SLR.

Ciao!

Joe

Now was that ... "CROP" or "CROCK" ??

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

TrentMcD said:

One thing to notice in the Oly propaganda papers is that the image
circle made by the lens is the same size as the sensor. My
interpretation of a crop is if the image circle made by the lens is
larger than the sensor and they take a portion, or a crop, of the
that image circle.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Three of the four lenses that Oly is showing appear to be full 35mm
lenses, cropped to 4/3 system.

The 50mm f2.0 macro is a well known Oly Zuiko 35mm lens.

Every major lens manufacturer has a 300mm f2.8, that's a
ubiquitious lens.

50-200 in the size they show is also common, either Oly's own
50-250, or their 60-200 (slightly modified).

The 14-52 is the only lens that is likely to be an actual 4/3 lens,
made by increasing the zoom range of something like a common 18-35
for 35mm full frame, having a smaller image circle only in the
14-18mm range.

One lens does not a "system" make. The mount appears to be the good
old 35mm Oly OM mount, in its autofocus configuration (remember the
OM-77). Twice the diameter and twice the registration distance
you'd need if it wasn't cropped. And a camera the size of a 35mm
SLR.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

If your interpretation is correct, I guess then that 35 mm is just
a crop of medium format. What a bummer.

Click to expand...

Well, if most 35mm lenses could cover a medium format frame I'd
agree with you.

Large format is large format.
Medium format is medium format.
35mm is 35mm.

All APS sized (1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x, and 1.7x) DSLRs from Nikon, Canon,
Pentax, and Fuji are "cropped" 35mm, as is the 2x Olymous E-System.

(Nikon is about to ship their first "DX" lens that matches the 1.5x
sensor, so at least there's a little bit of "uncropped" APS sized
gear coming, but until they have a camera that doesn't waste size
and weight on a full sized 35mm shutter, mirror, prism, and
focusing screen, there really isn't an uncropped "DX system",
either).

There have been sub 35mm SLRs with whole families of reduced
coverage, reduced registration distance lenses. Canon and Nikon had
APS SLRs. Pentax even had an interchangable lens 110 format SLR.

Ciao!

Joe

Click to expand...

--
Bob Herrin

I don't know if you are trolling, but I sort of disagree...

...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Exactly.

Three of the four lenses that Oly is showing appear to be full 35mm
lenses, cropped to 4/3 system.

The 50mm f2.0 macro is a well known Oly Zuiko 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

Yup, probably is. The Zukio 50mm f2 was a very sharp lens, why spend money designing new one?

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Every major lens manufacturer has a 300mm f2.8, that's a
ubiquitious lens.

Click to expand...

True. What should Olympus do? Make an 266mm? But then I don't know anything about optical design. I guess Olympus took the original 300mm, changed some formulas, maybe to reduce the image circle and make it a bit lighter.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

50-200 in the size they show is also common, either Oly's own
50-250, or their 60-200 (slightly modified).

Click to expand...

That doesn't quite fit. The 50-200 is too fast. No old lens fits that profile. The old OM zooms were all f4-5 max.

Of course, tweaking old design to focu more light in smaller area could make them faster, and that would make them dedicated 4/3 system lens, right. (IANAOD)

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The 14-52 is the only lens that is likely to be an actual 4/3 lens,
made by increasing the zoom range of something like a common 18-35
for 35mm full frame, having a smaller image circle only in the
14-18mm range.

Click to expand...

Can't be. Olympus didn't make any wider or faster zoom than the 28-48mm/f4 for the OM, so I suspect it is a new design.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

One lens does not a "system" make. The mount appears to be the good
old 35mm Oly OM mount,

Click to expand...

It's a bayonet mount, they all look the same. Just take a look at Canon EF mount.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

in its autofocus configuration (remember the
OM-77). Twice the diameter and twice the registration distance
you'd need if it wasn't cropped.

Click to expand...

Olympus arguments for the distance can be seen on their 4/3 websites.
( http://www.four-thirds.com/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf )
I have no reason to think they wouldn't do this on purpose.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

And a camera the size of a 35mm
SLR.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

If your interpretation is correct, I guess then that 35 mm is just
a crop of medium format. What a bummer.

Click to expand...

Well, if most 35mm lenses could cover a medium format frame I'd
agree with you.

Large format is large format.
Medium format is medium format.
35mm is 35mm.

All APS sized (1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x, and 1.7x) DSLRs from Nikon, Canon,
Pentax, and Fuji are "cropped" 35mm, as is the 2x Olymous E-System.

(Nikon is about to ship their first "DX" lens that matches the 1.5x
sensor, so at least there's a little bit of "uncropped" APS sized
gear coming, but until they have a camera that doesn't waste size
and weight on a full sized 35mm shutter, mirror, prism, and
focusing screen, there really isn't an uncropped "DX system",
either).

There have been sub 35mm SLRs with whole families of reduced
coverage, reduced registration distance lenses. Canon and Nikon had
APS SLRs. Pentax even had an interchangable lens 110 format SLR.

Ciao!

Joe

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

I'm no optical guru, but if the lenses are only cropping, how is the speed better than the 35mm counterparts?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm really asking. Anyone know?

Is the lens on my E-10 REALLY something like an f4 17- 68, 35mm lobbed on to a 2/3" chip? (not sure about the math here on the focal multiplier)

Anyone care to make an un-educated guess?

Trees

Yes, indeed. It became obvious to me after going through their presentation. They are comparing a 300mm lens to a huge 600mm lens (from an old 35mm camera). This completely ignores the fact that many competing manufacturers that have adopted a standard smaller than 35mm (close to APS size) but bigger than 4/3 can simply introduce lenses designed for their own sensor size. Much like Nikon is doing.

The 4/3 system body is huge. What's up with that? I thought part of their philosophy was to make the system components smaller?

--VJS

Group Idiot said:

Judging by their press release here:
http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it
indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV
crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

According to this "logic" presented on this thread, all 35mm film cameras are cropped, all medium format cameras are cropped, all APS cameras are cropped and the Canon 1Ds is also cropped.
Is it so difficult for people to understand? Obviously the answer is yes...

Every lens and every camera "crops" because lenses produce a circular image and film and digital sensors (CCD/CMOS) are SQUARE or RECTANGULAR, remember back to when you were 3 years old (or perhaps older than that) and the square peg wouldn't fit in the round hole? Well there was gaps remaining wasn't there? Thats like the sensor (or film) in the centre of a lenses projected image.

The 4/3 lenses project a SMALLER circle than that of a 35mm lense, therefore the amount of light per unit area is INCREASED, making the lenses FASTER, so to get a reasonably fast lense like F2.8, the lense designer can reduce the size of the whole thing, making it SMALLER.

The lenses will not cover the area required by a 35mm size sensor (or film) they are designed ONLY for a 4/3 size sensor.
THERE IS NO CROP.....

I suggest if you don't understand this, don't buy any kind of camera at all, because you will have many problems trying to understand what all the confusing knobs, dials and switches do....

Group Idiot said:

Judging by their press release here:
http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it
indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV
crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

vjsilva said:

Yes, indeed. It became obvious to me after going through their
presentation. They are comparing a 300mm lens to a huge 600mm lens
(from an old 35mm camera).

Click to expand...

Because the 4/3 300mm lense with its SMALLER sensor, gives the same view through the viewfinder as a 35mm 600mm lens.

Just like when you turn the dial to 9mm on your E10, the view is the same as 35mm lense on a 35mm size FILM camera, because the E10's sensor is smaller....

By your own arguement the 4/3 system is cropped also because the 4/3 system produces a circular image and the 4/3 ccd is rectangular.

My problem with Olympus' comparisons are that they are comparing their system to a 35mm full frame (1X) CCD and implying that other manufacturers will not introduce lenses that are matched to a particular CCD size. As Nikon has just done.

--VJS

Chris Charlton said:

Every lens and every camera "crops" because lenses produce a
circular image and film and digital sensors (CCD/CMOS) are SQUARE
or RECTANGULAR, remember back to when you were 3 years old (or
perhaps older than that) and the square peg wouldn't fit in the
round hole? Well there was gaps remaining wasn't there? Thats like
the sensor (or film) in the centre of a lenses projected image.
The 4/3 lenses project a SMALLER circle than that of a 35mm lense,
therefore the amount of light per unit area is INCREASED, making
the lenses FASTER, so to get a reasonably fast lense like F2.8, the
lense designer can reduce the size of the whole thing, making it
SMALLER.
The lenses will not cover the area required by a 35mm size sensor
(or film) they are designed ONLY for a 4/3 size sensor.
THERE IS NO CROP.....
I suggest if you don't understand this, don't buy any kind of
camera at all, because you will have many problems trying to
understand what all the confusing knobs, dials and switches do....

Group Idiot said:

Judging by their press release here:
http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it
indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV
crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

I would be surprised if Oly put out a 15mm equiv. lens.

Vince Lorto said:

Vince

Group Idiot said:

Judging by their press release here:
http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it
indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV
crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

--
But what do I know? I'm just a servant to the ancient Sumerian
god, Gozer the Gozerian. Keymaster

E10 - Tcon 300s - Tcon 14B - Wcon 08B - DPS9000 - RM CB1 - Tamrac
Expedetion 5 - Vivitar 285hv - Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer - Hoya
Polarizer filter - Kenko UV filter - B+W 25% ND filter - more to
come!

Click to expand...

--
regards,

FB

Jón Ragnarsson said:

I don't know if you are trolling, but I sort of disagree...

Click to expand...

I don't troll. I do "troll watch" (there are specific rules, believe it or not).

Deadly serious. I've got decades in advanced engineering, with work on biomehtics, speech recognition, telematics, and collision avoidance. All fields laced with more than their fair share of hype. I've gotten good at recognizing it, and this "4/3 system" reeks of it, like a hog in the summer sunshine.

Member said:

Member said:

Three of the four lenses that Oly is showing appear to be full 35mm
lenses, cropped to 4/3 system.

The 50mm f2.0 macro is a well known Oly Zuiko 35mm lens.

Click to expand...

Yup, probably is. The Zukio 50mm f2 was a very sharp lens, why
spend money designing new one?

Click to expand...

As I said, a repackaged 35mm lens, with no "4/3 system" advantage.

Member said:

Member said:

Every major lens manufacturer has a 300mm f2.8, that's a
ubiquitious lens.

Click to expand...

True. What should Olympus do? Make an 266mm? But then I don't know
anything about optical design. I guess Olympus took the original
300mm, changed some formulas, maybe to reduce the image circle and
make it a bit lighter.

Click to expand...

Actually, the optical formulae for telephotos in the 300mm range works just fine, they don't change it going from medium format to 35mm. Maybe a small change in the size (but not focal length or position) of some of the rear elements, which yields a trivial savings in weight, but nothing more.

Member said:

Member said:

50-200 in the size they show is also common, either Oly's own
50-250, or their 60-200 (slightly modified).

Click to expand...

That doesn't quite fit. The 50-200 is too fast. No old lens fits
that profile. The old OM zooms were all f4-5 max.
Of course, tweaking old design to focu more light in smaller area
could make them faster, and that would make them dedicated 4/3
system lens, right. (IANAOD)

Click to expand...

Good point. Although most any constant aperture 70-210 f4.0 can act as a variable aperture f2.8-4.0, and can be extended to 50mm with very little effort, expecially if you're willing to accept softer corners (not a problem if you're only using the center 50% of the image circle.

Member said:

Member said:

The 14-52 is the only lens that is likely to be an actual 4/3 lens,
made by increasing the zoom range of something like a common 18-35
for 35mm full frame, having a smaller image circle only in the
14-18mm range.

Click to expand...

Can't be. Olympus didn't make any wider or faster zoom than the
28-48mm/f4 for the OM, so I suspect it is a new design.

Click to expand...

Could be, or it could be someone else's old design.

Member said:

Member said:

One lens does not a "system" make. The mount appears to be the good
old 35mm Oly OM mount,

Click to expand...

It's a bayonet mount, they all look the same. Just take a look at
Canon EF mount.

Click to expand...

Quite true. But which makes more sense, having a new bayonet that's almost the same as an OM, or using the OM. When people change things, they make big changes, like Canon going to the EOS mount, or Pentax dumping screw mounts for the K bayonet.

Member said:

Member said:

in its autofocus configuration (remember the
OM-77). Twice the diameter and twice the registration distance
you'd need if it wasn't cropped.

Click to expand...

Olympus arguments for the distance can be seen on their 4/3 websites.

Click to expand...

Quite true, and the arguments are perfectly valid, a longer back focus does help with the sensor.

But why a back focus that is either identical to 35mm, or so close as makes no difference. It doesn't need to be that long, Canon and Nikon have proven quite sufficiently that 1/1.3 to 1/1.5 is quite sufficient. Neither system is known for vignetting problems. By using such a long mount, Oly has made any lens shorter than a 50mm (equivelant of a 100mm telephoto) a retrofocus lens. They can't use respectedl designs like the double Gauss or the Tessar ot the Xenotar for their normals or portrait lenses. They have to have some pretty funky stuff.

Member said:

( http://www.four-thirds.com/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf )
I have no reason to think they wouldn't do this on purpose.

Click to expand...

Of course they would. It's a win/win. The long mount gives them a better angle for the CCD. Recycling the OM mount is a time and money saver (even if it does end up a bit longer and wider than it needs to be). Why not recycle a well respected mount like the OM? Save R&D money, let the camera use existing OM lenses (after the 4/3 hype dissipates a bit). Plenty of OM parts (mounts, flanges, etc) availiable, all pretty cast and plated production parts, not some freshly milled one-off prototype.

Ciao!

Joe

I was about to post the exact same thing until I saw your subject header. You are absolutely correct, Chris, and it makes perfect sense. I also dont know why it isnt universally understood.

Good post.

-GageFX

Chris Charlton said:

Every lens and every camera "crops" because lenses produce a
circular image and film and digital sensors (CCD/CMOS) are SQUARE
or RECTANGULAR, remember back to when you were 3 years old (or
perhaps older than that) and the square peg wouldn't fit in the
round hole? Well there was gaps remaining wasn't there? Thats like
the sensor (or film) in the centre of a lenses projected image.
The 4/3 lenses project a SMALLER circle than that of a 35mm lense,
therefore the amount of light per unit area is INCREASED, making
the lenses FASTER, so to get a reasonably fast lense like F2.8, the
lense designer can reduce the size of the whole thing, making it
SMALLER.
The lenses will not cover the area required by a 35mm size sensor
(or film) they are designed ONLY for a 4/3 size sensor.
THERE IS NO CROP.....
I suggest if you don't understand this, don't buy any kind of
camera at all, because you will have many problems trying to
understand what all the confusing knobs, dials and switches do....

Group Idiot said:

Judging by their press release here:
http://www.four-thirds.com/press_release.htm (at the bottom), it
indeed looks as though their focal lengths ARE based upon a 2X FOV
crop.

Bogus :-(

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most
dangerous man!
Bunch of new photos at: http://www.pbase.com/bgetchel/root

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

And I've been saying this for some time now. FOV means nothing if you don't have anything to compare it to. Olympus clearly states their system has an equivalency to a 35mm lens. Nikon says the same.

http://www.digitaldingus.com/d100lounge/fov3.html

For those who say the 4/3 system has no FOV, they would be right, ONLY if Olympus was NOT comparing their lenses to other formats. Well, they are, so there is indeed a FOV Crop equivalency.

If you put a current E-System Oly lens on a 35mm, you would get vignetting more than usual, but you would still get a picture out of it. Compare both photos, and there would be a FOV of around 2x.

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity

I will also add that I had ZERO interest in the 4/3 system until I went to the 4/3s site. I never cared to listent ot what it was about, I was sure I wasnt interested. They explained it so simply. It all makes sense. It's certainly not for everyone, but I now know one thing - I like it and it makes sense. I will be happily shooting with my 1Ds by the time this camera ever hits stores, let alone reviewers' hands, but I like it and if it was out now, I'd probably buy it.

Coming from a former anti-4/3s, Oly disillusioned owner.

-GageFX

Your logic is great, and right on, but there is no FOV crop. There is an FOV crop EQUIVALENCY, but no ACTUAL FOV crop.

There is a difference. Symantics? Almost, but there is a definite difference.

-GageFX

Jason Busch said:

And I've been saying this for some time now. FOV means nothing if
you don't have anything to compare it to. Olympus clearly states
their system has an equivalency to a 35mm lens. Nikon says the same.

http://www.digitaldingus.com/d100lounge/fov3.html

For those who say the 4/3 system has no FOV, they would be right,
ONLY if Olympus was NOT comparing their lenses to other formats.
Well, they are, so there is indeed a FOV Crop equivalency.

If you put a current E-System Oly lens on a 35mm, you would get
vignetting more than usual, but you would still get a picture out
of it. Compare both photos, and there would be a FOV of around 2x.

Click to expand...