Digitalis32
Leading Member
You can see why the Sony QX100 never took off.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
My Plea to Camera Manufacturers- Please make THIS!
- Thread starter yuriythebest
- Start date
yuriythebest
Well-known member
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 58
Instead of APS-C, try comparing with the so-called 1 inch sensors: The diagonal of 4/3 sensors is approximately 4/3 the diagonal of a 1" sensor (while neither being as much as an actual inch).
Okay, I was intrigued enough to do some personal "practical" research into this. I for example assumed 4/3 was the size difference ratio between a larger sensor. So, why not test both assumptions?
First, let's see the aspect of the Micro4/3 = 17.3/13 = 1.33
Now, let's see what 4/3 is = 1.33
These numbers match up. So, the "image aspect ratio" is true.
BUT I didn't give up there cause I'm not lazy. Now let's test the second assumption. I took the next closest aspect, the Canon APS-C and compared their sizes.
22.3*14.9 =332.27 - size of APS-C(Canon)
17.3*13 =224.9 - Size of M43
332.27/224.9 = 1.47 - this number doesn't match up with 1.33, so it's not the size difference ration for APS-C (Canon). I tried the same calculation for APS-C(Nikon,Pentax,Sony) and there the number was even more way off at 1.86
Okey, let's try that as well and compare 1-Inch sensors and Micro4/3. Seems there is some variation as to the size of a 1" sensor (I assumed it would be, well, 1 inch but whatevs, guess various companies have their different variations)
let's see their aspects:
12.8/9.6 = 1.33 - wait, so the aspect is exactly the same as M43? What does this even prove?
13.2/8.8 = 1.5 - slightly different number, nothing to take note of here I think
Now let's compare their sizes ratio to M43 (224.9 is the size of M43, calculated earlier)
===================
For the 1st 1" sensor size variation:
12.8*9.6 = 122 (size)
224.9/122 =1.84 Nope, the size ratio doesn't match up even close
===================
For the 2nd 1" sensor size variation:
13.2*8.8 = 116.16 (size)
224.9/ 116.16= 1.93 Nope, the size ratio doesn't match up here either
Last edited:
Did your research extend to reading the Wikipedia article?
The name of the system stems from the size of the image sensor used in the cameras, which is commonly referred to as a 4/3" type or 4/3 type sensor. The common inch-based sizing system is derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube of 4/3 inch diameter.[17]
If you follow that footnote link, you can read the documentation produced by Olympus, which confirms it:
Four Thirds is a reference to the size of the image sensor. The image sensor for Four Thirds cameras is what is commonly referred to as a 4/3 type or 4/3 type sensor. These describe the type of sensor not the actual size of the light sensitive area, which is normally much smaller.
The sensor measures approximately 22.3mm diagonally, not four-thirds of an inch, which would be about 33.87mm. Traditionally, the nominal size of image-sensing devices has been based on a method of calculation that was introduced when vacuum image-sensing tubes were first invented. At the time, the outer diameter of these early 'vidicon' tubes was used to indicate their size.
Aspect ratio isn't even mentioned there.
It's the same reason why 1" sensors were named that way. They're around the size of the sensors contained within 1" vacuum tubes.
Last edited:
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
The definitive and inarguable answer to that issue is here, in a 2002 presentation by Oly's Consumer Electronics Senior Product Manager John Kna
http://web.archive.org/web/20021205033057/http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Olympus43Q&A.html
"Olympus has been working toward the "Designed to be Digital" concept since the introduction of the E-10, adopting the 4/3 or 4:3 aspect ratio for our CCDs based on the viewing image, and printed image sizes. This is the closest and most used by most advanced and professional photographers."
After photographers point out, at length, what they thought of the 4:3 aspect ratio, Oly buried and retconned everything they ever wrote about the "most beautiful" aspect ratio. But the internet remembers...
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Actually, I did. The aspect ratio is mentioned twelve times. That's rather a miracle considering both fanboys and Olympus marketing used to watch that article and remove any references to the aspect ratio. They especially removed references to John Knaurr's and Yusuke Kojima's statements.
Nothing, whatsoever.
That explanation was written in 2005 by an unnamed PR person at Oly Europe marketing.
In 2002, John Knaurr, the Director of Consumer Electronics Product Development at Oly explained that the system was named "four thirds" because of both the 4:3 aspect ratio and the "4/3 inch" vidcon tube standard.
In another interview, Yusuke Kojima, Imaging Systems Group Vice President at Oly Japan (the man who literally named the four-thirds system) referred to 4:3 as "the most beautiful aspect ratio".
Yes. That article was written in 2005. By 2003, Oly had their fill of professionals and amateurs complaining about the "boob tube" aspect ratio and swept every reference to the aspect ratio under the rug.
Peculiar the attempts to re-write history.
For example at some point people were denying that the L in Canon L lenses stood for Luxury . maybe the idea was out of fashion but someone at Canon Europe did not get the memo..
the same happened with Minolta and the G lenses. G stood for gold but, for one, a self appointed expert here and his mates , sometime ago, pretended that it didn't , not sure why....
For example at some point people were denying that the L in Canon L lenses stood for Luxury . maybe the idea was out of fashion but someone at Canon Europe did not get the memo..
the same happened with Minolta and the G lenses. G stood for gold but, for one, a self appointed expert here and his mates , sometime ago, pretended that it didn't , not sure why....
Johan Borg
Senior Member
And the E-10 in question had a 2/3 type sensor, the 4:3 ratio wasn't something new in the E-1, it was the most common aspect ratio of digital cameras at the time. What was new in the E-1 was the sensor size, 4/3 type.
Just look at all the initial coverage of the new mount, with tons of references to 4/3 type, but none for 4:3:
Or to quote Olympus first press release from that link:
4/3-Inch Image Sensor Size
The Four Thirds System uses a 4/3-type CCD or other image sensor, and will facilitate the development of dedicated digital camera lens systems that maximizes the image sensor performance to ensure outstanding image quality while also being smaller than 35 mm film SLR camera lens systems.
Johan Borg
Senior Member
4/3 sensor diagonal = 21.64mmInstead of APS-C, try comparing with the so-called 1 inch sensors: The diagonal of 4/3 sensors is approximately 4/3 the diagonal of a 1" sensor (while neither being as much as an actual inch).
Okay, I was intrigued enough to do some personal "practical" research into this. I for example assumed 4/3 was the size difference ratio between a larger sensor. So, why not test both assumptions?
First, let's see the aspect of the Micro4/3 = 17.3/13 = 1.33
Now, let's see what 4/3 is = 1.33
These numbers match up. So, the "image aspect ratio" is true.
BUT I didn't give up there cause I'm not lazy. Now let's test the second assumption. I took the next closest aspect, the Canon APS-C and compared their sizes.
22.3*14.9 =332.27 - size of APS-C(Canon)
17.3*13 =224.9 - Size of M43
332.27/224.9 = 1.47 - this number doesn't match up with 1.33, so it's not the size difference ration for APS-C (Canon). I tried the same calculation for APS-C(Nikon,Pentax,Sony) and there the number was even more way off at 1.86
Okey, let's try that as well and compare 1-Inch sensors and Micro4/3. Seems there is some variation as to the size of a 1" sensor (I assumed it would be, well, 1 inch but whatevs, guess various companies have their different variations)
let's see their aspects:
12.8/9.6 = 1.33 - wait, so the aspect is exactly the same as M43? What does this even prove?
13.2/8.8 = 1.5 - slightly different number, nothing to take note of here I think
Now let's compare their sizes ratio to M43 (224.9 is the size of M43, calculated earlier)
sqrt(12.8*12.8 + 9.6*9.6) = 16 (diagonal)
21.6 / 16 = 1.35 (darn close)
sqrt (13.2*13.2 + 8.8*8.8) = 15.9 (diagonal)
21.6 / 15.9 = 1.36 (pretty close)
tbcass
Forum Pro
Notice that M43 sensors are closer in size to 1" than FF which shoots down the idea that it's a "large" sensor.
Somehow I missed the second sentence in the article: 'Four Thirds refers to both the size of the image sensor (4/3") as well as the aspect ratio (4:3).' That seems very reasonable to me. But I only noticed the other bit further down.
You referenced this transcript of an interview:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021205033057/http://www.a-digital-eye.com/Olympus43Q&A.html
Whoever wrote the article claims that there was a follow-up phone conversation in which it was 'clarified' that 'The FourThirds refers to the aspect ratio of the sensor 4:3 and the size of the Imager*.'
I'm not a 4/3 user, so I never heard of the described ideological schism. Whatever rewriting of history has taken place, it seems reasonable to assume that the real answer was both.
Last edited:
That would be a risk millions of us already take every day. The lenses themselves are almost always plastic and very hard to break, so might be somewhat protective. The frames would be a nuisance.
definedphotography
Well-known member
- Messages
- 171
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 89
No thanks. Leave them on your computer where you've got the processing power.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
dpReview covered the "Alice", "the AI-enhanced Micro Four Thirds camera" a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/26270...tm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source
If people like the features, it will spread.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Greater processing power in the camera could improve the JPEGs but it would also shorten battery life. The best results would be processing RAWS in a desktop or laptop computer that has a dedicated image processor.
Ellis Vener
Forum Pro
You’re right! This is exactly what the world is crying out for: a more complicated camera system.
--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
“It's not about the f-stop." -Jay Maisel
Don't be "a photographer.” Be photographing. (Paraphrasing William Faulkner's advice to writers.)
--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
“It's not about the f-stop." -Jay Maisel
Don't be "a photographer.” Be photographing. (Paraphrasing William Faulkner's advice to writers.)
Last edited:
In the future we will use brain power wirelessly to process photos.
I've tried the air bag going off with glasses on and it was not a problem for me or my wife. And any factory I ever worked at required safety glasses before you entered the premises for safety reasons. And as I have worn glasses for 68 years "I" feel totally vulnerable without them. Your mileage may vary and I hope you never get an eye damaged by some object.
tbcass
Forum Pro
LOL.
Some of us already do that, with a computer and wireless input devices.
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum