Has the 4/3 sensor chip stalled at 8 MP?

Bas, it was bigger than that, two cameras (OM-77/OM-707 and OM-88/european name unknown) and eight lenses in production. I saw the unreleased pro AF SLR and some cool AF lenses (including an AF version of the legendary 250mm f2.8) years ago at a trade show.

 

Every time a photographer buys gear, it's an investment. The "return" is how much he'll make using that gear, how much will that gear be worth when it's time to sell it, and whether parts are availiable for repair. Now, the orphaned status of Oly's three systems (OM, Pen-F, and OM-AF) doesn't affect how much money you can make using them, but it most definitely affects how much you'll be able to sell them for, and how hard it will be to get repair parts or find even a place with expertese to do the repairs (wait, I guess availibility of parts and service does affect profit, so it is part of your ROI).

 

Having an orphaned system, or even an unpopular one, also affects a pros ability to make money in other ways, such as the availiability of equipment rental. If I need a 600mm f4 telephoto for an assignment with a Nikon, I know where to rent one local, and I also know New York rental houses who will airship me one. I don't know a shop that can do that for an Oly...

John, you spoke about "investing" in the system, hence making someone an "investor". I think that is bollocks for your average users and turned this into buying. Only after that I joked about the other type of investing.

 

Yes Oly dropped OM too, just like Canon dropped FD, what's the diff?

 

Joseph, the OM-88 has "power focus", not auto focus. Focussing was done using a wheel at the back of the camera. Very silly. And it was squarely aimed at amateurs too, not people who buy a camera to make money.

 

All but a handfull of buyers of any system are professionals for whom this availability of hire equipment or a professional service network is an issue as only they will never make use of it. The rest of us will just have to send out camera back and wait three weeks.

 

Telling a soccer mom not to buy an E-500 becuase she can't hire a 600/4 for it or buy a 35mm PC lens when otherwise the camera is perfect for her is just plain silly.

Bas, I see the investment misundersanding. I repeated Terry Bowen question, -- Friends, So what is the answer? Invest in Olympus or not?

 

That was to show Mark Chappell answer with which I agreeded. Anyway, damn internet reading confustion!

 

Now your question is: Yes Oly dropped OM too, just like Canon dropped FD, what's the diff?

 

The difference is Canon stayed in the high end with new systems and products to help their clients up the stepladder. Oly left their clients on the first rung and devoted all their resources to point and shoot amature market. For OVER 10 years.

 

Hence my Once Burned comment in regard to the survival of 4/3. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. For me, I can't say I'm convinced they won't cut and run again. Regards

Yeah, damn confusion. :)

 

Not sure about "Canon helping" making it a difference; I am sure Canon was there too with nice products for OM orphans! The change from FD to EF was as big as OM to EF would have been. I guess it made some people feel real warm and fuzzy that Canon cared for them so much (ie: made more expensive products) after it yanked FD from under them, but realisticaly - apart from the few posterboy professionals who get their stuff for free - they simply ended up buying a whole new system, filling Canon's coffers with their hard earned cash. That is progres and there is noting wrong with that, but I don't see how that is different from OM users having to jump ship to Canon or Nikon.

 

Like I said, I doubt many professionals had a significant amount of money invested in the consumer grade OM-AF cameras and bodies as they simply were not meant as high end products.

 

I doubt the survival of 4/3 in the next 5 years as much as the next guy. But after carefully weighing the options, I found it worth the risk as the other option would be a - for my use - more expensive and less optimal Canon or Nikon system. I hope I am wrong and FourThirds will still be there in 2015 when I am due for the next big upgrade; I would hate to have to carry a few kilos of body and lens around my neck all day with one of them "full frame" cameras!

Bas, no problem here, it's like what makes a horse race. Good luck.

RE I doubt 4/3 will be around! In Canada it is Minolta who have stopped marketing their cameras! I would hate to see a two horse race that is N&C. If that were so we will have less choices. I hope all the "old" names can find a market & increase competition.I care not to be on the "winners" side. I only want a camera that lives up to "my" expectations.

What do you think of Olympus using a CMOS chip in the E-3? Would it ruin the "look" of

the E-1, or could they make it the same?

I think they could. Look at the D2X, that has a CMOS chip too and does have a very nice look, nicer than Canon CMOS imagers in my opinion.

 

I think a lot of the E-1 look comes from "Zuiko vision", the look Oly lenses had in the OM days and still do.

"How much do you want to gamble on a system that could become obsolete and unsupported before you're through using it?"

 

That's exactly the situation that I find myself in with the Contax G2, which Kyocera abandoned last year. However, parts and service are still available and should continue to be so for quite a few years. What's more, the camera works so well and the lenses are so fine that it seems irrelevant that Kyocera is no longer producing the line. The same can be true of an Oly if it has the features and performance you want and feels good in your hands.

There is a difference between what Olympus did, in dropping the OM line without providing anything else, and what Canon did, of changing mounts and then going on to build a superb system.

 

I should admit that, for me, there was another difference. I was using Olympus OM, and I didn't get stuck with a bunch of obsolete lenses from Canon.

 

You have to be wary of buying into an Olympus system, if only because marketing realities makes it more likely that they'll drop their DSLR line.

<i><blockquote> The 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS but much larger than the ones on

compact models.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Except the digicam market is beginning to use APS sensors in its cameras, starting with

the <u><A href = http://www.photo.net/equipment/sony/DSC-R1/>

Sony DSC-R1</a></u>.

 

<p>

When prices on APS sensors drop to the extent that APS sensors on digicams become

ubiquitous -- which appears only a couple of years off -- Olympus will have a hard

time convincing anyone, even the current blinkered diehards, that its 4/3 system has

much added value over the competition.

The Dutch have a saying "One swallow [the bird] does not make a summer". If you think that

APS size sensors in digicams are the way of the future, you are mistaken. People want their

10x zooms and that simple doesn't work on an APS sized sensor in small package. Or a

FourThirds sensor for that matter. You need something even smaller. I doubt that kind of

sensor would even fit in the package of a Canon G series camera.

 

The DCS-R1 is not a small camera and it's not going to be cheaper than DSLRs with the same

performance and size. Sure, Sony will sell a few of them, but a trend setter it ain't.

We'll see. I remember quite a few people here saying that affordable full-frame sensors

were a pipedream, that the reports of the 5D were "fiction" and more. All wrong.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call $3300 "affordable" and in any case, if you think it is (do you actually own one?), there has been an even more affordable full frame DSLR out there for quite a while; the now discontinued Kodak. To me it's affordable when it's the price of a 20D and I can pick up a 24-105/4L for $600. (they can even take away IS to make it that price, who needs that at this focal length?)

 

But you are forgetting one thing: DSLR owners are usualy willing to put up with big lenses. And any full frame camera - be it film or digital - will need BIG lenses for them to be fast and high quality. Heck, neither Canon nor Nikon seems to be able to come up with a fast, reasonably priced, high quality standard zoom for APS sized sensors; it seems to take something as small as a fourthirds chip to make that kind of difference. (either that or the people who design optics at Olympus are smarter than them)

 

I think a lot of people buy cameras like the FZ-30 or KM A-series for the big zoom range. But that simply isn't going to work if you put an APS size sensor in there; it would be too big and somthing will have to give. That something is either zoom range (explain that one to your marketting department) or speed/quality. (explain that one to DPReview.com)

it's not saying much that the aps-c sensor will become ubiquitous in the digicam market

when all that's left after phonecams take over will be a handful of dslr look-a-likes with

aps-c sensors and superzooms that depend on small sensors. it doesn't really change

anything for olympus, which is already competing with aps-c sensors.

 

how many megapixels until you max out the resolution of zd lenses? and i imagine a cmos

sensor like canon would take care of any noise problems. then there are all of the other

incremental improvements in speed. i can't imagine anything killing 4/3 other than

completely incompetent marketing.

Bas confuses 'pipedream' with 'available to all today.'

 

Ah, such is the life of an Olympus zealot.

Yes, but that doesn't answer my question if you actually own a 5D or if it is, ehrm, too expensive for you too. Instead, you lower yourself to name calling.

 

In fact, you don't any postings or a website to prove you know anything about photography or even own any camera at all...

Bas, from your line of reasoning we could prove that 35mm point and shoots must have been the size of toaster ovens. Hilarious.

Ehrm, no. But that was only because they either had a 35mm prime lens, or a fantastic 35-135mm f/4.5-13 zoom lens.

 

Either that or they were the size of, say, the Olympus IS series.

 

Small cameras with big sensors/film and fast zoom lenses don't mix. And that ain't ocean physics, it's optical fact.

 

The Panasonic FZ-20 is only able to have that f/2.8 10x zoom because the lens is in fact HUGE compared to the size of the sensor.

<i><blockquote> Yes, but </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Translation: Bas is wrong but still wants to argue.

That may be the case, but it seems Bob Atkins shares <a href="http://www.photo.net/news/cypress_9_MP.html">the same views as I have</a> on the subject of APS-C sensors in digicams.

Wrong and still arguing. Amusing.

You must have missed this paragraph in Bob's article:

<p>

<i>Will this mean we're going to see a bunch of APS-C sized sensor digicams? We'll,

maybe some but I doubt we'll see "a bunch". A larger sensor means a larger camera and a

larger lens. One of the things people seem to like most about digicams is that they are

small. APS-C sized sensor cameras would probably be about the same size as 35mm P&S

cameras and that's quite a bit bigger than most digicams. The 35mm P&S lenses are also

much slower than current digicam lenses. You can't stick a 35-105 f2.8 zoom on a 35mm

P&S because it would be larger than the camera is, but you can easily put an f2.8

35-105/2.8 (equivalent) lens on a 1/1.7" sensor sized digicam and keep the whole thing

small.</i>

<p>

The "amusing" thing is that you keep saying I am wrong, without any proof or argument.

That way you keep making a fool of yourself and sound like a 4 year old...

<i>Admittedly</i> wrong and still arguing. Heh.

"Has the 4/3 sensor chip stalled at 8 MP?"

 

No more than the original Nikon D1 stalled at 2.74 megapixel, remember then the D1x at 5.4MP, and now up to the D2x at 12.84MP.

 

 

I still predict a non-Kodak 10+MP chip for the E-3. Will it have less noise than the Canon, certainly not, but it will probably be like the Nikon D2x at ISO 100-800, which will suit me fine as I've never even used 1600, not even on the Nikon.