Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
GageFX,

Not to argue with a longtime Oly bud, but Oly is clearly stating that there is an equivalency. A smaller image circle, or even a different focal plane distance, will still have an FOV equivalency, if one company is comparing their non-35mm lenses to "normal" 35mm lenses.

Again, I have quotes from Oly and Nikon who say this:

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

If Oly compared their lenses to 6x7 lenses, the FOV would be 4.5x2, which would be a FOV factor of 9. My point is that as long as their is a comparison, there will be FOV. No comparison to a different imager size, no FOV.

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
 
Someone gets it!! Thank you GageFX!! :O) (big smile)

I myself left Oly behind at Christmas for the first time in 20 years and bought a D60, if the 4/3 was established by then I would have taken it seriously, but they are dragging their feet a little so I decided to switch to Canon.

However I am keen to see how things pan out and I wait with interest to see Phils review.

If I get more serious with my photography and start making plenty of money, I will look more closely at the 4/3 as a back up camera system to my Canon stuff.

Chris
GageFX said:
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
Click to expand...
 
NT
Jason Busch said:
GageFX,

Not to argue with a longtime Oly bud, but Oly is clearly stating
that there is an equivalency. A smaller image circle, or even a
different focal plane distance, will still have an FOV equivalency,
if one company is comparing their non-35mm lenses to "normal" 35mm
lenses.

Again, I have quotes from Oly and Nikon who say this:

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

If Oly compared their lenses to 6x7 lenses, the FOV would be 4.5x2,
which would be a FOV factor of 9. My point is that as long as their
is a comparison, there will be FOV. No comparison to a different
imager size, no FOV.

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
Click to expand...
 
What you need to realize is that as long as you compare the two formats, there will be a crop. The 4/3 lenses are specifically made for the 4/3 sensor, therefore here is no crop and the ratio is 1:1. The issue of crop only comes up when you use a lens that is made for a 35mm format on a camera that has a smaller sensor than 35mm. In this case you will have a crop of for example 1.6 as in EOS D60. So if you stop comparing formats, there wont be a crop. If that is the case, 35 would be a crop of medium format, BUT they both utilize their respective lenses, which makes each one of a 1:1 ratio.
 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting analogy for someone who works in advanced engineering, I too work in an advanced technology engineering environment and I haven't quite heard that one before.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Three of the four lenses that Oly is showing appear to be full 35mm
lenses, cropped to 4/3 system.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Really? You work for Olympus? Please give us more details on the 4/3'rds system, we're dying to know....
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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...
Click to expand...
Errmmmm let me think for a minute.....its coming.....Arr yes! The fact the OM series NEVER had autofocus before? And one more thing.....it was designed to project a 35mm film size image at the film plane?
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
As I said, a repackaged 35mm lens, with no "4/3 system" advantage.
Click to expand...
I ask again, do you work for Olympus?
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
THEY DON'T USE ONLY THE CENTRE OF THE IMAGE CIRCLE, THERE IS NO CROP!!!!
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Could be, or it could be someone else's old design.
Click to expand...
Olympus is mainly an optic based company, they have no need to copy others designs, would seem a shame to leave all those experienced designers twiddling their thumbs once the OM series was discontinued.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
? Don't quite get your point....
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Quite true, and the arguments are perfectly valid, a longer back
focus does help with the sensor.
Click to expand...
Yes it does if the aim is to project the light at a tangent to the plane of the sensor, which it is.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
No vignetting problems because they have a FOV crop which the 4/3 doesn't have! (talking digital, not film)

Try a camera without a FOV crop, like the Canon 1Ds, you will find plenty of vigetting.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
We'll see what funky stuff they have this year, although I suspect they won't be making a super wide angle, (less than 20mm equivalent to 35mm film)
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Of course they would. It's a win/win. The long mount gives them a
better angle for the CCD.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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).
Click to expand...
Correct.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Why not recycle a well respected mount like the OM?
Click to expand...
Why not!
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
It will allow existing users to use their lenses if indeed the new 4/3 has an OM mount. There will of course be a penalty, a 2X FOV multiplier and only manual focus. But for some folks this will be fine.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Ciao!

Joe
Click to expand...
 
:O)
Gevork Mosesi said:
What you need to realize is that as long as you compare the two
formats, there will be a crop. The 4/3 lenses are specifically made
for the 4/3 sensor, therefore here is no crop and the ratio is 1:1.
The issue of crop only comes up when you use a lens that is made
for a 35mm format on a camera that has a smaller sensor than 35mm.
In this case you will have a crop of for example 1.6 as in EOS D60.
So if you stop comparing formats, there wont be a crop. If that is
the case, 35 would be a crop of medium format, BUT they both
utilize their respective lenses, which makes each one of a 1:1
ratio.
Click to expand...
 
A friendly debate.

Okay. I understand what you are saying. You have basically restated what you said the first time. Do you DISAGREE with anything I said or do you agree and you;re just choosing a different POV to look at it from?

-GageFX

(And I have too much respect for you to even THINK this "debate" would deteriorate to anything less than friendly.)
Jason Busch said:
GageFX,

Not to argue with a longtime Oly bud, but Oly is clearly stating
that there is an equivalency. A smaller image circle, or even a
different focal plane distance, will still have an FOV equivalency,
if one company is comparing their non-35mm lenses to "normal" 35mm
lenses.

Again, I have quotes from Oly and Nikon who say this:

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

If Oly compared their lenses to 6x7 lenses, the FOV would be 4.5x2,
which would be a FOV factor of 9. My point is that as long as their
is a comparison, there will be FOV. No comparison to a different
imager size, no FOV.

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
Click to expand...
 
Jason's on our side. He just doesnt see it yet.

:)

-GageFX
Chris Charlton said:
Jason Busch said:
GageFX,

Not to argue with a longtime Oly bud, but Oly is clearly stating
that there is an equivalency. A smaller image circle, or even a
different focal plane distance, will still have an FOV equivalency,
if one company is comparing their non-35mm lenses to "normal" 35mm
lenses.

Again, I have quotes from Oly and Nikon who say this:

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

If Oly compared their lenses to 6x7 lenses, the FOV would be 4.5x2,
which would be a FOV factor of 9. My point is that as long as their
is a comparison, there will be FOV. No comparison to a different
imager size, no FOV.

--
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Which is the only bad side of this concept. 28mm is pretty wide & they'll probably get it "a little" wider, but not wide enough.

I find this thread interesting. Crop vs. No Crop. People arguing the same points in two different directions. The bottom line is in 35mm equivalency, there is a 2x crop. This matters more & more when you get wider & wider. At some point, the lens become a fisheye and emits barrel distortion. This is when Crop vs No crop should be argued. Can they make a wide that equals 15mm without barrel distortion using their "supposed new" lens designs? The E-xx went from 9mm with a 4x crop (& yes, you can argue crop vs no crop on this one too) and this gave us noticable barrel distortion. This is equivalent to 18mm on the new E system. Time will tell, but the crop is real to me until they fix the wide.

Vince
frankb said:
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
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!
 
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
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).
Click to expand...
Phew. I thought so too, I guess I've been too long on this Net thing.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course it is hyped. The markters have to make the managment that they are worth the money. You DO read Dilbert, dont you, like any good engineer?
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski 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.
Click to expand...
OTH, even if the old OM and this new E are both 50mm and f2, we have no way of knowing if it is the same design.
...
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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)
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.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could be, or it could be someone else's old design.
Click to expand...
Now the Troll alerts did go off in my brain. :) Do you really think that Olympus, one of the worlds top optical makers uses someone else's old design? I don't think so. Remember, Olympus is to microscopes what Nikon/Canon are to SLR's. (Did I get that phrase right?)
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then Olympus went for bayonet mount over 30 years ago, so they didn't need to do it again.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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.
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.
Joseph S Wisniewski 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.
Click to expand...
There we agree. After all, the mount is just to hold the lens to camera. It's a mechanical thing, and everybody is doing it more or less the same way. I havent matched OM/FD/EF lenses to a OM/EOS/Nikon cameras, but I would suspect that the physical difference were minimal.

J.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Ciao!

Joe
Click to expand...
--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

 
vince lorto said:
I find this thread interesting. Crop vs. No Crop. People arguing
the same points in two different directions.
Click to expand...
I find that interesting also.
vince lorto said:
The bottom line is in
35mm equivalency, there is a 2x crop.
Click to expand...
No there isnt. There's a "crop equivelancy" as there is no ACTUAL crop.
Now YOU are arguing the same point from a different direction.
vince lorto said:
The
E-xx went from 9mm with a 4x crop (& yes, you can argue crop vs no
crop on this one too)
Click to expand...
No you cant.There is either crop or no crop. It cant be both.

The CAN be "crop equivelancy", though.

-GageFX
 
Round & round, Gagefx. Please insert equivelancy everywhere it's needed to satisfy you. Now, shouldn't they have announce the lenses as 600mm 2.8 (300mm equivalent in 35mm) vs 300mm (600mm in the E system)?

Vince
GageFX said:
GageFX133521 said:
I find this thread interesting. Crop vs. No Crop. People arguing
the same points in two different directions.
Click to expand...
I find that interesting also.
GageFX133521 said:
The bottom line is in
35mm equivalency, there is a 2x crop.
Click to expand...
No there isnt. There's a "crop equivelancy" as there is no ACTUAL
crop.
Now YOU are arguing the same point from a different direction.
GageFX133521 said:
The
E-xx went from 9mm with a 4x crop (& yes, you can argue crop vs no
crop on this one too)
Click to expand...
No you cant.There is either crop or no crop. It cant be both.

The CAN be "crop equivelancy", though.

-GageFX
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!
 
vince lorto said:
Round & round, Gagefx. Please insert equivelancy everywhere it's
needed to satisfy you. Now, shouldn't they have announce the
lenses as 600mm 2.8 (300mm equivalent in 35mm) vs 300mm (600mm in
the E system)?
Click to expand...
No, because it isn't "nitpicking", it's "being accurate". They shouldn't be announced as "600mm" because they aren't. Why dont they list Med Format lenses as the 35mm equivelant? Because they are different systems.

You can ceratainly make a Med FOrmat vs. 35mm EQUIVELANCY comparison, but to call something it isnt is inaccurate. I'm sure if they listed the lens as "600mm" you would quickly take the contrary side and say they are lying. They aren't, they're telling the truth, and it's 300mm. Yes?

-GageFX

(Arguments go "round & round" when one party KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS the truth but wont concede.)
 
Oh. Jason... stay with me. So close. I know you tried to put it to rest, but being the anal @ss I am I cant let it rest with that statement.

No matter how many cameras or lenses, they ALL have FOV - Fields of View. FOV is not dependant on anything but the lens (or viewing apparatus) it is applied to. FOV EQUIVELANCY is dependant on more than one camera/lens/viewing apparatus SYSTEM/STANDARD.

Yes?

-GageFX
Jason Busch said:
GageFX,

I think we're all on the right track. FOV is nothing without
something to compare it to. If there was only one camera on earth
with one lens format, there would be no FOV.

It can be confusing, indeed. :)
Click to expand...
 
I was starting to get it with Chris's explanation, but Gevork's nailed it on the head for me. I don't think it could be explained more clearly.

Now I have to give my brain some fresh air. Zoomer needs a walk.

--
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
 
GageFX said:
There is either crop or no crop. It cant be both.

The CAN be "crop equivelancy", though.
Click to expand...
We're talking about two completely different things here. And it's important to be accurate and consistent with the terms, or we're going to end up like Zoomer chasing his tail.

--
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
 
Or are you saving that for the new studio party?
--
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
 
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