So who was 4/3 originally aimed at?

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,644
missing the point

And I don't say this as a dig against you.

Marty4650 wrote:

4/3 never could compete with a FF sensor (and even an APS-C sensor) when it came to sports photography or commercial photography for billboards. And the smaller sensor was at a disadvantage for any sort of low light photography, like for weddings.

The point is that the sensor size is irrelevant to noise. The key is the lenses.

If 4/3rds had equivalent lenses to those available to FF drivers, there would be NO noise disadvantage. None. Nada. Not a single one.

The problem is that an F2 lens in 4/3rds is equivalent to an F4 lens in FF.

A bright lens is considered f1.4 in FF. An F4 equivalent lens is simply not bright enough. There are no really bright lenses in 4/3rds.

That is why there is a noise problem, not because of the sensor size. The problem is the lenses.

Many of the professionals who shoot landscapes don't feel FF sensors are big enough. They use medium and large format cameras instead.

Professional photographers are interested in resolution and DR regardless of physical size. Witness the landscaper's joy of the D800. It is technically possible for 4/3rds to have very high mp and dynamic range.

The OP asked... "what market was 4/3 originally aimed at?" And I think it is very hard to deny they were aiming very high at professionals, once you look at the build quality, lens quality and prices of the initial offerings.

Olympus claimed outright that the E1 was the beginning of a 'professional' system. They even set up pro support that a professional photographer could sign up to. This gave you access to very rapid service and a hotline to experts (though I found their 'experts' to be wanting).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow