4/3rds is its own form factor

4/3rds is its own <i>form factor</i>, designed from the ground up to satisfy

its own needs.<p>Thus, 4/3rds is full frame (<i>unto itself</i>) and not any

other form factor or derivative of. <p>We who own 4/3rds bodies and lenses

should stop letting others and even ourselves-make light of the only form

factor in imaging which set its own standards, standards which other makers,

including Leica-have joined in to use. <p>Better, what other form factor can

adapt to 13 other lens mounts with adapter, to include PENTAX screwmount, all

Pentax "K" mounts and even Pentax 645 medium format lenses?<p>What other form

factor can wring 1000mm @ f/2.8 out of their lenses? What other form factor has

a 180-500mm f/2.8 zoom?<p>My point? Why let others (<i>and some of us</i>)

belittle 4/3rds, the most innovative form factor in digital imaging?

If it works for you, keep using it.

 

To me it is like the first 35mm cameras, too small in many eyes. But it has it virtues.

 

The problem here is competition with bigger size sensors and the cameras are not

significantly smaller as were the original screwmount Leicas.

I'm okay. You're okay. We're all okay. Can't we all just get along?

Ronald Moravec: <br><b>If it works for you, keep using it.<br>To me it is like the first 35mm cameras, too small in many eyes.</b><p><p>..."too small" in what regard? Have you even seen or better, <i>handled</i> a 4/3rds body to be able to make such a statment with such authority?<br>So in your eyes (<i>not hands it seems</i>), the E-3 is ``too small``? <p><b>But it has it virtues.</b><p><p>That ``virtue`` of course being 4/3rds being it's own form factor: the OP point. <p><p><b>The problem here is competition with bigger size sensors </b><p><p>Ah-you <i.did</i>miss the OP point: 4/3rds ``competes`` with <i>nothing</i>. <p><p><b>...and the cameras are not significantly smaller as were the original screwmount Leicas.</b><p><p>I see you have never handled either the E-400 nor E-410.

Too small a sensor for the size camera in the pro models.

Despite being a strong advocate for 4/3, I have to agree with Ronald. The strengths of 4/3 lie in portability and form factor. The strengths of Olympus lie in innovation and clever new technology which breaks the mold of spec matching cameras we see every year from C and N. I feel the E3 (with some minor exceptions) shows neither of these traits.

 

However, I also agree with the OP that 4/3 is a format of its own, a full frame format which should not really be compared to anything else because it is just too different, and serves different functions.

 

That is why I think Oly have made a big mess up with the E3. It's a fine machine, but it's just too comparable with the competition. It's saying that while we have this fine space saving new format, we still have to prove we have chest hairs by bringing out a massive 'pro' spec camera, defeating all of the benefits of 4/3 in the first place, while showing up all the disadvantages.

 

Furthermore I feel Olympus are pushing 4/3 into a sector where the larger formats of the big two are already so dominant that they have made competing very, very difficult. It would be difficult for any company such as Oly, Pentax and Sony, even if they were using FF sensors, never mind 4/3.

 

While the E3 may be a very fine piece of equipment in its own right, it will /always/ be compared to the D300 and 40D (and possibly 5D). Here it will always lose, not because of the sensor size, but for the simple fact that it does not have a Nikon or a Canon badge on the front. To most people who have been given prior recommendation, that's all that matters.

 

Just as Ford (for example) will never be seen as *the* luxury super powerful, high end car manufacturer, I don't think Olympus will ever be able to compete by claiming 4/3 can fight head on with FF. Even if it technically matched the quality of FF, or even surpassed it, that would not be enough to attract a very loyal established Canon and Nikon top end user base.

 

I think Olympus need to carve a new niche of the small, portable, but tough, clever, and very high quality cameras that the OM line was famous for. I think Olympus need to grab this niche by the balls again and really push cameras like the E510, which is one of the most interesting cameras to come on to the market in a very long time. Coupled with the incredible DZ glass it's quite unparalleled at that place in the market. There are people with top end Nikons and Canons picking up E510s or E410s as backup or 'personal' cameras, because while they are very portable, they are still light years ahead of any compact digicam, as well as being incredible fun to use, and the glass is just magical.

 

But in my opinion, if Oly could build an E510 to pro level construction with a bigger viewfinder, faster FPS and bigger buffer with the new SWD af, and either retain its form factor or make it even smaller, you could sell it from a whole different angle ; the tough pro spec camera that you can throw in a bag and go trekking for a week without needing a packhorse to carry it. The press / street shooter that can take the abuse like a 1DMk3, but is tiny, unintimidating and totally discreet while still giving you *plenty* of image quality.

 

I think Oly have a bit of soul searching to do before they will really see where the natural benefits of the system lie.

 

David

If someone would make a 4/3 camera and some lenses that was more like a Contax G2, I would be all over it in a heartbeat. Small form-factor, rangefinder-like feel and compact fast lenses. That would really get me excited.

 

As it is, I can't see buying into the 4/3 system when it doesn't offer anyone much of an advantage over a canon/nikon 1.5x sensor camera with dedicated lenses.

 

But I do agree that 4/3 is it's own "format". I just don't think that it matters much. Just like APS was compared all day long to 35mm film, 4/3 is going to be compared to full-frame and 1.5x sensors.

I agree also. Some small fast lenses and a good body : small, to disinguish it from the larger sensor cams, and tough, tactile and excellent handling to distinguish it from the bottom level squeaktoys.

 

David

Give me the form factor of the E-410, with the features of the E-3, and give me some really small, really awesome primes like the Pentax Limited pancakes... that's my dream camera. Literally -- I've actually had dreams about it.

Add a silent shutter (full time mirror lockup?) and you have the perfect street camera.

Sure, 4/3 is its own form. Just like the 5x7mm and 6x8 mm sensors used in small digicams. They have also been built from the ground up as digital cameras with lenses specially built for them. These cameras are small and light and make pretty good images at their slowest ISO speeds. 4/3s is a bit better in this respect. The big difference is that in 4/3 bodies you can attach 35mm film lenses, and then there is a crop factor because the sensor is much smaller than the original film size for which the lenses were originally made. It is a versatile system and getting better all the time. To me it is just one tool among many and I am happy to use it within its limitations.

 

I am also eagerly waiting for a 4/3 sensor rangefinder or digicam. I do wonder why it has taken so long and not come to market.

When I read some of the comment in these thread like :

"I can't see buying into the 4/3 system when it doesn't offer anyone much of an advantage

over a canon/nikon 1.5x sensor camera with dedicated lenses."

OR

"The strengths of 4/3 lie in portability and form factor"

I have to keep wondering why after so many things written on the 4/3 rds format, so many

are missing the point

When creating the 4/3 format olympus clearly stated that the major reason to create this

format is that they were convinced that the properties of the digital technology required

lenses designed specifically for digital and that with a 35mm sensor , the said lenses

would be either too big or too expensive

After denying this point, you can see now that all major manufacturers are re-vamping or

redesigning their lenses for their DSLR's

After 5 years on the market , Olympus has proven with the 410 and 510 that they could

indeed come up with dslr that resembles the size of the most compact film SLR ( think OM

10-20-1-2 or pentax Me series)

Contrary to what Dwhite writes the E3 is not" a mess" but a camera designed with

photographers who need a pro viewfinder and a larger buffer

 

BUT where it gets funny is that most of you forget one of the greatest strength of the 4/3

format. Composition is not only one of the great joy of picture making and also a very

important factor in image strength.

outside the small postcard format, the 4/3 is in fact much more homothetic tha the 3:2

ratio so that you don't have to crop each picture significantly

There are some photographers who no doubt will prefer the elongated ratio of the 3:2

ratio, photographers should really look at their composing habits to see what fits better

their style

As for me , I shoot mostly verticals. I have a leica m6 and m8. while the 3;2 format

sometimes work for landscapes in horizontal , I found out that it never works for verticals

 

i think that this point should be looked at now that modern technology sensors has

eliminated quality difference between 4/3 sensors and aps sensors

H

Herve, not E-3 per se question. You are using the sophisticated Leica M8,which no doubt had lots of Stuttgart engineers slaving for years... So how is the Leica M8 in practical use for this so called "form factor" business. (I perceive the term form factor as size and ergonomics and weight,but can't say for sure)

 

Since I will never likely see one here in alohaland is why I ask. Is it a large block of metal and therefore more robust and familiar. Are the lenses,adapted for a less than 24X36 sensor size really a lot smaller than the older M series. I am just thinking that since Josh mentioned the Contax,did Leica achieve a brilliant coup with its M8? I won't buy one unless I find a rich widow out here who wants a boy toy :-) Small is great,but Leica seems to have maintained bulk and yet usablity or desirability in form and function. Or am I wrong on that?

 

Funny, my neighbor just gave me his exquisitely mint Minolta SRT 102 with 58mm 1.2 lens(circa 1970(. Boy is that a little iron meteorite in the hand..and no motor drive etc. Thoughts, Herve? Can one fit a quart into a pint jar and get all the goodies. Maybe Nikon has, I havent seen the D300 and lens comparable to the Zuiko ED 12-60. gs

I do not have a pancake lens on my wish list. Manual focusing=phooey. I would like to see Olympus get that ED 100mm macro out this year. With at least F2.8 and not too pricey.

If the 4/3 system makes you happy, then be happy. Who cares what others think?

 

Personally, 4/3 does nothing useful for the type of photography I do. My choice of tools

makes me happy, so I don't care what others think.

"so that you don't have to crop each picture significantly"

 

It may be just me, but I find myself cropping the long sides of many of my 4/3 images to actually be closer to 2:3 in format.

 

Olympus may have superior technology on lenses to fit a smaller 4/3 sensor. But that does not mean that Canon, Nikon etc. would not be good, or even better, with their larger sensor even if the lenses may suffer some compromises projecting the image to cover the larger sensors. Canon, Nikon, etc. may be lens limited but Olympus will always be sensor resolution and noise limited. Digital technology can improve and make smaller sensors better, but larger sensors will also improve and will always have better S/N ratio as well as the ability to pack more pixels into the given sensor space. If larger sensor was not better, judged purely on image quality, there would be no market for medium format backs. Certainly not at their current prices. Yet there are several manufacturers who seem to do quite well.

And I will be happy if these alternatives exist.

Gerry wrote:<br><br><i>"I do not have a pancake lens on my wish list. Manual focusing=phooey."</i><br><br>Pentax's pancakes are autofocus. :-)<br><br>One of <A title=these href="http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens--smc_P-DA_40mm_F2.8_Limited/reqID--6635729/subsection--Digital_35mm_standard" target=_blank><STRONG>these</STRONG></A> on a E-410 would be sooooo sweet!

<i>Thus, 4/3rds is full frame (unto itself) </i><p>Full frame has a specific usage, which has nothing to do with 4/3, thankfully. Trying to invent a new meaning for it will result in a party of one.<p><i>Ah-you miss the OP point: 4/3rds ``competes`` with nothing.</i><p>I've found out the hard way that if something competes with nothing, there's a good reason for that. When there is a desirable product, there is lots of competition.

Well put, Ed!! I have had to correct the error repeated in this forum that "4/3 is smaller than APS". Some folks don't understand the difference between size and aspect ratio.

 

Olympus has certainly succeeded in the design of this system. The image quality from the E series can go head to head with anything Nikon or Canon puts out.

I think Oly is waiting for the world to catch up; just as they waited with their previous 1/2 frame and other miniaturized offerings in the late-last century. The "problem" is, they aren't in a position to drive the market; thus those of us who believe in them and their "vision" are likely to get get squashed by the "BIG" boys (figuratively and literally) whose out-dated equipment/size/user inventory still rule.

 

Do you have the will and stamina to withstand the marketing onslaught (from the 35mm legacy crowd wielding those huge teles)? Only time and faith will tell.

Ray Hull

Illka, if you came up in field where a square format,like Bronica and Hasselblad and Rollei offered a versatile and professional level format,then you might actually favor a squarish crop. Or choose what format suits the image you selected... That 2/3 biz is the most pallid argument yet,but no matter.

 

I don't expect such debates to end, Ed,not in Canonland.

 

No rant, cool head, live and let live I say, Gerry :-)

I don't diddle w marketing matters so I only know what I read. I have read that the DSLR market is projected to increase by double digits in the next few years. New horseflesh w no legacy lenses... So let's think it through. How is the SLR pie divided now. One tenth,more or less,goes to Olympus product.Not a big player.

 

Sticking with the pie metaphor, it's so far,after years of decline and now resurgence,like a 9" pumpkin pie you buy at Safeway. Well and good. But, big but,if the pie gets to be the size of that obscenely huge ones that I see at COSTCO, then a tenth,diameter squared, comes out to a nice yen increase for Olympus camera division, Panasonic, Sony and Pentax camera divisions. All seem to offer something a little bit different and all have merits from what I see. You shoot in loud dim rock clubs, you don't want an Olympus.

Don't misunderstand what I wrote in the foregoing caption. Full frame is defined to apply to such as the EOS 5 and Canon EOS 1DS Mark II (nice looking item too, used at B and H for 4000.00 right now) I didn't mean that FF doesn't have an accepted meaning. And I also understand what the poster is getting at too.If a lens circle matches the sensor diameter correctly, it is a marriage all its own. Just as full frame for my Bronica is 6 by 6 cm. Actally a little bit less.

It may not be an M8 but a Panasonic DMC-L1 with a Leica 25mm 1.4 lens is a thing to behold.