olympus on the rocks

do you think there might be a hint of a 180-400mm olympus lens

paul cool said:

do you think there might be a hint of a 180-400mm olympus lens

Click to expand...

You would think that they should get their facts straight first.

The Four Thirds name comes from the 4/3" sized sensor, and not the 4:3 aspect ratio which is normal for compact cameras.

I may watch the rest while I (slowly) munch a sandwich and reserve my judgement until then.

Anyway, what is it with folks, why does everything have to turn into some boring video?

Why not a page of text and save us the bother of watching this stuff?

Is somehow a video of untruths more appealing than text of untruths?

I just don't get it.

Regards..... Guy

Guy - When was the 4/3 sensor ever 1-1/3 inches?

Jim Salvas said:

Guy - When was the 4/3 sensor ever 1-1/3 inches?

Click to expand...

Ever since Kodak came up with that sized CCD sensor ages ago. Naturally the industry uses the totally stupid Vidicon tube sizing standards so the less than 1" diagonal sensor sounds a lot bigger when called 4/3" or 1.333" or 1-1/3".

OK back to the OP, yes they twice mentioned the 150-400mm lens with a "revolutionary mount", so keep waiting (and waiting) to see what that might be meant to mean.

Plus another error detected, they said that the "E-" series was all about 4/3" but that was never the case, Olympus originally had a few lines of cameras like "C-" and "D-" and E-" series, where the "E-" was the upper end and later became the system cameras. The first examples were fixed lenses E-10 in 2000 with a 2/3" sensor and a prism beam splitter instead of a mirror and at the same time the E-100RS with a 1/2" sensor. It was 2003 before they got around to an interchangeable lens design with 4/3" sensor, the E-1.

So folks, the video has some good bits and some mistakes but overall it was 34 minutes of watching to get about 3 or 4 minutes of information.

I know that I'm old and cranky, but I'm happy that way.

Regards.... Guy

I only watched a little of that clip, before it became evident to me that those old guys were drinking whiskey over the rocks, right out in front of God and everybody.

I think they need to decide whether they'd like to sell Olympus four thirds inch cameras to the entire family, or whiskey by the fifth to old men, who yearn for the days when they were still able, to climb tall mountains.

But at least, they weren't using French measurements, and were talking American about inches and gallons, and fractions, thereof.

There ain't no English Bourbon, by law.

Humansvillian said:

I only watched a little of that clip, before it became evident to me that those old guys were drinking whiskey over the rocks, right out in front of God and everybody.

Click to expand...

Well, they get paid to promote it so they had to do it.

Humansvillian said:

I think they need to decide whether they'd like to sell Olympus four thirds inch cameras to the entire family, or whiskey by the fifth to old men, who yearn for the days when they were still able, to climb tall mountains.

But at least, they weren't using French measurements, and were talking American about inches and gallons, and fractions, thereof.

Click to expand...

They were using the world universal metric measurements for the lenses.

Only USA, Liberia and Myanmar failed to convert to the world standard. All backward stuck-in-the-mud countries. Sorry about that.

Humansvillian said:

There ain't no English Bourbon, by law.

Click to expand...

And that is a good thing.

I prefer a good shiraz.

Regards..... Guy

Guy Parsons said:

Jim Salvas said:

Guy - When was the 4/3 sensor ever 1-1/3 inches?

Click to expand...

Ever since Kodak came up with that sized CCD sensor ages ago. Naturally the industry uses the totally stupid Vidicon tube sizing standards so the less than 1" diagonal sensor sounds a lot bigger when called 4/3" or 1.333" or 1-1/3".

OK back to the OP, yes they twice mentioned the 150-400mm lens with a "revolutionary mount", so keep waiting (and waiting) to see what that might be meant to mean.

Plus another error detected, they said that the "E-" series was all about 4/3" but that was never the case, Olympus originally had a few lines of cameras like "C-" and "D-" and E-" series, where the "E-" was the upper end and later became the system cameras. The first examples were fixed lenses E-10 in 2000 with a 2/3" sensor and a prism beam splitter instead of a mirror and at the same time the E-100RS with a 1/2" sensor. It was 2003 before they got around to an interchangeable lens design with 4/3" sensor, the E-1.

So folks, the video has some good bits and some mistakes but overall it was 34 minutes of watching to get about 3 or 4 minutes of information.

I know that I'm old and cranky, but I'm happy that way.

Regards.... Guy

Click to expand...

You are quite right. However, by definition, a 4/3" sensor also happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Perhaps it's all getting too confusing and Olympus is happy to down play it. Anyway, I found the video informative but yes, too long. I liked the comment about the unfortunate naming of Micro-4/3. I thought it was weird when it first came out too. Mirrorless-4/3 would have been way better however I don't think the term "mirrorless" was around then.

BobT3218 said:

Bobapingu said:

...... However, by definition, a 4/3" sensor also happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The 4:3 ratio happens because Vidicon tubes for TV in the 1950's were always 4:3 ratio to fit the funny old TVs at 4:3 of that era. I guess Kodak was just following on with 4:3 ratio sensors no matter what size the sensor was.

It's only 35mm film still cameras that adopted the weird aspect ratio of 3:2 which of course spawned the popular printing size of 6x4". That became another standard that stayed on with many digital designs.

Bobapingu said:

Bobapingu said:

Perhaps it's all getting too confusing and Olympus is happy to down play it. Anyway, I found the video informative but yes, too long. I liked the comment about the unfortunate naming of Micro-4/3. I thought it was weird when it first came out too. Mirrorless-4/3 would have been way better however I don't think the term "mirrorless" was around then.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes the M4/3 should always have been Mirrorless 4/3, but surely the marketing genius people of the day could have dreamed up a better and less confusing name, as there's always that confusion between 4/3 and M4/3 for the great unwashed.

Hardly "Micro" as the later up-market bodies have turned into "Monstro".

Regards...... Guy

But sometimes it's a metric fifth, which is used to cheat the booze customers around the world of less than an quarter of an ounce per fifth. It all adds up, I suppose.

But if old guys want to sit around a table drinking shots of bourbon whiskey, in Utah there is a law that says a shot is one and a half ounces, but otherwise it's more than one ounce, and less than two, by American custom.

But you have to watch out for cheats, and bartenders watering the drinks, using less than a shot or a jigger, or maybe even a cheater glass.

The best policy is stay home with your wife and kids, and leave them old barrooms alone.

Nobody ever forced anybody, to drink that old devil's spirit.

It impairs judgment, and leads to the bottle talking, instead of the man.

But the worst thing about booze, is that old men market it to young boys, who don't have enough judgment yet, to resist the temptation of booze.

It could ruin them, for ever becoming a good man.

--
Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks

Guy Parsons said:

Humansvillian said:

I only watched a little of that clip, before it became evident to me that those old guys were drinking whiskey over the rocks, right out in front of God and everybody.

Click to expand...

Well, they get paid to promote it so they had to do it.

Guy Parsons said:

I think they need to decide whether they'd like to sell Olympus four thirds inch cameras to the entire family, or whiskey by the fifth to old men, who yearn for the days when they were still able, to climb tall mountains.

But at least, they weren't using French measurements, and were talking American about inches and gallons, and fractions, thereof.

Click to expand...

They were using the world universal metric measurements for the lenses.

Only USA, Liberia and Myanmar failed to convert to the world standard. All backward stuck-in-the-mud countries. Sorry about that.

Guy Parsons said:

There ain't no English Bourbon, by law.

Click to expand...

And that is a good thing.

I prefer a good shiraz.

Regards..... Guy

Click to expand...

And the weird thing is, the USA military, aerospace and automotive industries are all entirely metric.

And it's figured, in 5,280 foot miles.

===================

The sun is at the heart of the solar system. All of the bodies in the solar system — planets, asteroids, comets, etc. — revolve around it at various distances. Mercury, the planet closest to the sun, gets as close as 29 million miles (47 million kilometers) in its elliptical orbit, while objects in the Oort Cloud, the solar system's icy shell, are thought to lie as far as 9.3 trillion miles (15 trillion km).

Earth orbits the sun 100,000 times closer than the Oort Cloud, at an average of 92,955,807 miles (149,597,870 km). The distance from Earth to the sun is called an astronomical unit, or AU, which is used to measure distances throughout the solar system.

==================

I suppose the French may convert AU to their measurements, but Americans know we are about 93 million miles from the sun.

And sitting on top of the right side of the world.

(We just can't figure out, why the rest of the other people in the world think we are so arrogant, you know?)

--
Humansville is a town in the Missouri Ozarks

Humansvillian said:

And it's figured, in 5,280 foot miles.

===================

The sun is at the heart of the solar system. All of the bodies in the solar system — planets, asteroids, comets, etc. — revolve around it at various distances. Mercury, the planet closest to the sun, gets as close as 29 million miles (47 million kilometers) in its elliptical orbit, while objects in the Oort Cloud, the solar system's icy shell, are thought to lie as far as 9.3 trillion miles (15 trillion km).

Earth orbits the sun 100,000 times closer than the Oort Cloud, at an average of 92,955,807 miles (149,597,870 km). The distance from Earth to the sun is called an astronomical unit, or AU, which is used to measure distances throughout the solar system.

==================

I suppose the French may convert AU to their measurements, but Americans know we are about 93 million miles from the sun.

Click to expand...

Which Earth to Sun measurement would you like to use, that is, from which season? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit

Humansvillian said:

And sitting on top of the right side of the world. ,

Click to expand...

Wrong again, it's the USA that is upside down, we in Oz are the right way up.

Humansvillian said:

(We just can't figure out, why the rest of the other people in the world think we are so arrogant, you know?)

Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmm. I refrain from comment due to it may cause another invasion.

Regards...... Guy

It's quite fitting that found in the skid row of measurements, down below even the gutter, is the least unit of measurement, some kind of metric gibberish known as the Planck Length, which sounds more German than French, to me.

=================

The smallest possible size for anything in the universe is the Planck Length, which is 1.6 x10-35 m across.


Equivalent to around a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a cm across (a decimal point followed by thirty four zeroes and a one), this is the scale at which the quantum foam is believed to exist: the laws of quantum physics cause minute wormholes to open and close constantly, giving space a rapidly-changing, foam-like structure. If we were ever able to exploit the tremendous energy of the quantum foam, then the power contained within one cubic centimetre of empty space would be enough to boil the Earth's oceans.

==================

While that Max Planck was over there in Germany worried about the smallest metric measurement in the world, Americans were home making atomic bombs that measured output in big metric tons of TNT, just to have a safety margin over real short tons of TNT.

Then we invited all of Planck's younger colleges to come to America, where they helped us design moon rockets using slide rules, measured in thousands of a inch, or less.

Why other folks living in other places don't consider us hospitable, is one of the mysteries.

After all, we allow the Japanese to visit Pearl Harbor, and the Germans to visit Disney World, and we'll let them stay about a week, spending our dollars there.

Humansvillian said:

But sometimes it's a metric fifth, which is used to cheat the booze customers around the world of less than an quarter of an ounce per fifth. It all adds up, I suppose.

But if old guys want to sit around a table drinking shots of bourbon whiskey, in Utah there is a law that says a shot is one and a half ounces, but otherwise it's more than one ounce, and less than two, by American custom.

But you have to watch out for cheats, and bartenders watering the drinks, using less than a shot or a jigger, or maybe even a cheater glass.

The best policy is stay home with your wife and kids, and leave them old barrooms alone.

Nobody ever forced anybody, to drink that old devil's spirit.

It impairs judgment, and leads to the bottle talking, instead of the man.

But the worst thing about booze, is that old men market it to young boys, who don't have enough judgment yet, to resist the temptation of booze.

It could ruin them, for ever becoming a good man.

Click to expand...

I need a beer ;-)

All the best. and a good read that one Love it.

Danny.

I am glad someone else cannot stand time wasting videos - obviously designed for those that don't read books.

Humansvillian said:

But sometimes it's a metric fifth, which is used to cheat the booze customers around the world of less than an quarter of an ounce per fifth. It all adds up, I suppose.

But if old guys want to sit around a table drinking shots of bourbon whiskey, in Utah there is a law that says a shot is one and a half ounces, but otherwise it's more than one ounce, and less than two, by American custom.

But you have to watch out for cheats, and bartenders watering the drinks, using less than a shot or a jigger, or maybe even a cheater glass.

The best policy is stay home with your wife and kids, and leave them old barrooms alone.

Nobody ever forced anybody, to drink that old devil's spirit.

It impairs judgment, and leads to the bottle talking, instead of the man.

But the worst thing about booze, is that old men market it to young boys, who don't have enough judgment yet, to resist the temptation of booze.

It could ruin them, for ever becoming a good man.

Click to expand...

If you want get confused about alcohol measures, come to Australia where every state has its own beer measure and nomenclature. Bartenders in border town often have to ask what state you are from first to know what to serve you. Yes, Australia has been fully metric since 1974 and every one of those weird parochial beer measures are accurately defined in millilitres

Tom Caldwell said:

I am glad someone else cannot stand time wasting videos - obviously designed for those that don't read books.

Click to expand...

I think it's more a case of - designed for those who can't read.

Edukashun standards are falling like a rock.

Regards......... Guy

Any idea what could a "revolutionary mount" possibly be? If we presume the lens will be backward compatible with a standard m4/3 mount?

Okapi001 said:

Any idea what could a "revolutionary mount" possibly be? If we presume the lens will be backward compatible with a standard m4/3 mount?

Click to expand...

The wisest idea in this turbulent hotbed of rumour guessing is to go take photos with existing gear and wait for official announcements.

OK, I know that's no fun, but it works to calm anxieties.

Regards...... Guy

Guy Parsons said:

Okapi001 said:

Any idea what could a "revolutionary mount" possibly be? If we presume the lens will be backward compatible with a standard m4/3 mount?

Click to expand...

The wisest idea in this turbulent hotbed of rumour guessing is to go take photos with existing gear and wait for official announcements.

OK, I know that's no fun, but it works to calm anxieties.

Click to expand...

Don't know where you see any anxiety, but I see nothing wrong with being curious. It's what makes us humans;-)

I am just curious what feature could possibly be added to a m4/3 compatible mount. Some sort of self-locking magnetic mechanism?