Why only Olympus has a 4/3 system cameras

It just dawned on me the reason behind the greatest gripe people have

with the Four Thirds standard: only Olympus has products on offer.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

 

The other two DSLR makers in the alliance - Kodak and Fuji - are not

lens makers. For their other bodies, they rely on people buying Nikon

and/or Canon lenses. This is sensible as that captured the vast

market of film users of the big two brands converting to digital.

 

But when it comes to Four Thirds, there is no such market, everybody

is buying a whole new system. Why mix and match to start with? What

are the odds of someome buying a Fuji or Kodak body and getting

Olympus lenses? More likely, they buy the lot from Olympus.

 

Since they don't seem to want to be in the lens business, all they

can do is what for an upgrade cycle (like a competitor for Olympus E-

2, or whatever the next pro model will be called) or for someone else

to make a lot of lenses for them.

 

Sigma has now announced two consumer grade lenses, which won't sway

these makers of pro bodies. It will take more than that.

 

Fortunately, in the mean time, Olympus has shown to be quite

competent at making lensen and bodies. But unless someone else gets

serious about lenses, a 4/3 version of the S3 or a "Pro 14f" won't

appear.

 

Or does anybody have any other theories?

I think that is kind of like asking why Ford doesn't build an Suburban.

 

The 4/3 "system" is simply the size of the chip, a prioritory type of lens mount and communication, and lenses with image circles sized to match the sensor size.

 

I think somewhere in all the hype is the idea that if an image is going to be digitized anyway that it may be simpler and cheaper to correct certain optical aberations in the software instead of the optics but I don't think that has been realized to any significance yet.

 

However, there is no reason that I can see that other camera manufacturers would or should copy Olympus's lens mount because they have better marketing.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp

 

 

I think it puts it in perspective to keep in mind that you still only have less than one third the sensor area with the 4/3 chip as you do with 35mm film.

I haven't heard anyone gripe about the 3:4 aspect ratio of the Olympus E-1. The gripes have been about the price of the E-1 body, lenses and accessories, the smaller size of the sensor relative to the APS-sized Nikon DSLR sensors and that the E-1 sensor is a weenie 5 Megapixels.

 

More to the point, though, I haven't heard anyone demanding cameras with 3:4 aspect ratio. If fact, up to the introduction of the E-1, the 3:4 ratio had really only caught on with advertising shooters and the Fuji 6x8cm MF SLRs or the 6x8 back for Mamiya RB67s. And the Fuji cameras, at least, are now effectively being discontinued.

 

I use Nikons (2:3) and I use Mamiya 7IIs (3:3.5). I could live with a 3:4 aspect ratio camera, but it would have to be a better camera for me to buy a new system. The Olympus E-1 isn't that camera.

 

Also, Oly is a victim of its own lack of success. Given that Oly has reduced prices on its own equipment for lack of buyers, it is no wonder third-party manufacturers aren't rushing to make Oly compatible lenses and flashes.

 

Then too, while camera buyers may have short memories, manufacturers and retailers don't. People in the business remember the Oly 35mm autofocus system and how Oly junked the system completely after, I think, two years, leaving retailers holding the bag. Third-party lens and flash makers are correctly taking a wait-and-see approach, looking at whether the E-1 system is still being made a year from now.

Eric got it right on.

 

I personally feel 4/3 has one of the most pleasing aspect ratios (ever tried framing a dragonfly from top on 35mm/APS sensor? It's really difficult to make full use of film/sensor real estate!). I really hope the 4/3 system gets more widespread with time. The Olympus E series has immense potential.

Thanks Arnab. Like a broken clock, I'm right twice a day.

 

One other thing- licensing. In order for third-party lens makers in particular to make Oly-E-compatible lenses, Olympus must first license the mount. I don't know whether Olympus has done this yet.

Note on the link that I posted that there are lots of cameras with a 4/3 aspect ratio. The "4/3" that Olympus refers to is sensor size which is actually about a 2/3" diagonal. The 4/3 refers to an very old vacuum tube standard used for TV cameras. The only logical reason to use it to describe digital sensors it to fool people into believing that digital sensors are larger than they really are.

Eric, even though I said nothing about the 4:3 ratio, that ratio is the weapon of choice for every single digicam, including "prosumer" ones. 35mm doesn't have 2:3 because it makes sense, but just because it does, it was a choice. Considering that 6.xMP is still the numer of megapixels for the majority of other DSLRs, calling 5MP "weenie" is showing a complete lack of understanding of megapixels vs. image size at 300DPI. The actual difference is a staggering 20% in image area and even less in width/height of the image!

 

Neal, while the system has those corrections available you speak about, I can assure that none of the Olympus lenses on offer benefit from it or that the system is turned on by default. They don't need it, they are on par with anything Canon or Nikon have to offer without any electronic trickery. I also wasn't trying to start a piss-fight about sensor size. Yes, bigger is better, but how good is good enough and can you start taking other factors into considerarion? For my requiremnts, the lower weight, size and price it enables outweighs absolute image quality. Your requirement may be different.

 

Personaly, I think it is in Fuji and Kodak's interest to put their money where their mouth is. Without a system they can call their own, they will always be slave to Canon and Nikon (and in a lesser way Sigma and Tamron) and when the film to digital conversion is over, people starting from scratch will probably go back to buying lenses and bodies from the same company. If they want to survive the demise of film, they will have to innovate. "Sit and wait" is surefire strategy to run your company into the ground.

While Olympus obviously is the driving factor, 3rd parties won't have any problem getting licensing, see <a href="http://www.four-thirds.org/">the Four Thirds website</a>.

Bas, when you have a smaller chip with fewer pixels, you have less resolution. Some E-1 users on this site are fine with the E-1's resolution. I've shot a little with the camera now and am underwhelmed by the E-1's resolution. Perhaps the new 8MP E300 will remedy the resolution issue:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092710olympuse300.asp

 

"(Olympus lenses) are on par with anything Canon or Nikon have to offer(.)"

 

Which is fine. But you have to get people to buy the cameras in sufficient quanities that third-party lens makers can sell enough lenses for the cameras to cover their initial production costs.

 

As to the 4/3rds site, the makers listed have apparently pleged mutual support to cameras with the Oly chip size. This does not mean the mount has been licensed. You'll note that Sigma is a member of the 4/3rds group, but has yet to field an Oly-E-compatible lens.

 

"For my requiremnts, the lower weight, size and price it enables outweighs absolute image quality. Your requirement may be different."

 

And here Oly has two problems:

 

1. What lower price? Even at a lower price, the E-1 body is retailing for $1,300- a chunk of change for a 5MP DSLR. Most folks who are going to pay this kind of $$$ for a DSLR are interested in image quality over size.

 

2. What lower weight and size? The Oly E-1 is a surprisingly large and heavy camera. I appreciate its metal construction, but at 23 oz. without batteries, the E-1 outweighs the Nikon D70 by 2 oz.

 

"Without a system they can call their own, (Fuji and Kodak) will always be slave to Canon and Nikon."

 

Fuji and Kodak have consistently shown that they are content to make whatever profit they make producing a limited number of DSLRs based on Nikon bodies. Producing a new DSLR line is hugely expensive. I doubt that Fuji has the production capacity. I know that Kodak lacks both the production capacity and the financial health.

I am not talking about 3rd party lenses by the likes of Sigma and Tamron, I am talking about DSLR manufacturers that have said to support the system and are not. My point it is that that is because they don't produce any lenses. My later point was that unless Fuji and Kodak become big players, their company size and profit will shrink. So while they are content now with part film sales and part DSLR sales, when film dries up completely and all the pros (and their DSLR cameras only serve pros) have converted, new pros are more likely to buy all their gear from one manufacturer, leaving those two without sales.

<p>

Sigma was a latecomer to the 4/3 system, so I doubt any other 3rd party would have trouble joining in.

<p>

If you just look at the body's price and weight, you are correct. But take an E-1 plus the two zooms and compare that against a D70 or 10D/20D system using pro level lenses that cover the same focal range. In that case, the <i>system</i> is significantly cheaper and lighter with a 1/3 saving in both departments.

I am not saying that the sensor is too small. What I am saying is that I have never seen a rational explination of why digital camera manufacturers, in 2004, use a method of describing vacuum tubes that dates from the '40 to describe their chips except that it obscures the true size and misleads consumers. Even Popular Photography published an explination that said that 4/3" was the diagional measurement of the sensor chip!

 

I also don't see why, given the fact that Canon is building cameras with "full sized" sensors, which will accept and fully utilize all the excellent 35mm lenses already out there, why the industry would copy Olympus.

 

I have purchased several digital cameras for our company including what was at the time the state of the art, an Olympus the E-10. That camera has served very well in everyday comercial use.

 

They are excellent cameras in every way.

 

However, what the markets seems to scream for is more full size sensors that use exsisting lenses without a multiplication factor. I am not sure that I understand what is so special about "4/3" that it should be come a "standard" that everyone should conform to?

 

Furthar as the reality of digital filters through the hype, I think more and more people are reconsidering their commitment to give up film entirely, so a digital camera that swap lenses back and forth with film cameras.

 

In the last few days I read a post where someone was asking if they could use their new very expensive Nikon digital lens on their film camera. The answer was yes if you don't mind round pictures.

Also one of the big arguements for correcting optical aberations in software is that in lens design you can make some aberations worse by makeing others better. If you can shift some of the design load to the computer, it is logical (time will tell if it is practical) that the final image could be better than with a lens where everything was corrected in the lens.

 

But I can't see why you have to copy Olympus to do that. Many cameras have unique communication with their flash attachments but the aftermarket has simply responded with adapters.

And image quality is the sum of both sensor and lenses. If I have less than $2000 to spend with the choice of 20D+17-85/4-5.6 or E-1+14-54/2.8, it's easy to see which of the two will get you sharp, contrasty pictures with the option of shallow depth of field when the image calls for it.

 

Neal, nobody is saying "the industry" should copy Olympus. The two mentioned manufacturers have said they will. I am just trying to figure out why they haven't done so yet.

 

While the price problem of full frame sensors will be solved, the weight and price problems of pro-grade lenses, won't. So there will always be a market for people who do want an interchangable lens DSLR with great lenses without the cost. And while some people still want to shoot film and digital, newcommers to photography - which in, say, 10 years time will be all but a few percent of sales - will just want digital.

 

Smaller sensors will get higher resolution and and less noise too, so even when full-frame is affordable, the only advantage it will offer to newcommers is the option of less depth of field.

 

I firmly believe there is room for both full frame and a smaller system, just like there is room for $100 3MP fixed lens point and shoots and a camera like the Minolta A1 or Olympus C8080. It's not "all or nothing"!

IMHO this had nothing to do with the aspect ratio, or technical restrain . Its simply a matter of Brand independent and customer retaining. Sure Olympus are pushing the 4/3 standard and citing the advantage of 4/3 cross compatibility for body lens combo.

 

But heed this, if you are Nikon or Canon, or even Pentax & Minolta. There is absolutely no incentive to go 4/3 and in fact there's ample reason not to go 4/3 and stay with your own mount. The E-1 had just prove the point that 4/3 do not reduce working weight and size. SO all that Olympus been promoting had little effect.

 

Independents like Fuji & Kodak are not there to make 4/3 either as their product position is clearly to adopt their technology to a platform where the majority of the market populance are. And certainly 4/3 is not.

 

Its not about some Mfr got serious about 4/3 lens. Its about Olympus got serious with 4/3. The E-300 is one step in the right direction. And might be ( a big might be ) the rumored of that 2nd 4/3 Mfr come along ...

If you compare the weights of the E-1 and a D2X or H, you'll see that there is indeed some difference in the high-end cameras.

Bas, a 14mm f/2.8 lens won't really give you a background blur advantage over a 28mm f/

3.5 lens. 14mm lenses have far greater DOF than 28mm lenses at the same aperture -

one stop doesn't help that much.

Ok. A theory why the Olympus 4/3 mount and accompanying lenses hasn't been a big smash. Olympus chose to introduce the system just one year ago with a moderately expensive professional model,waterproof and armored like a personnel carrier. And they priced the lenses competitive with some of the mid to L ED and aspheric range Nikons and Canons,with large apertures.(Looks to me like the lenses are o ring sealed also from the booklet,nay?)<p> Many will argue from now until second coming that they are overpriced,and it is arguable. True they sold a wee small percentage vis a vis the Canon 10D the red hot camera of last year. At the same time serious amateurs were fretting and stewingn about where to invest the big bucks or just wait until something jelled...and pros just went for high end Canons and Nikes. I think the megapixel argument not very compelling in real world terms,but maybe not so puny when you are 'selling' cameras...Say,sir, "How many mps does it have..?" that is the mp to dollar ratio like the knob to dollar ratio in Hi Fi audio, I get it,I understand... My theory is that phase 2)the intro of this E300 will be a big boost to the camera. And Kodak and Fuji may never introduce a 4/3 camera body. I would not be surprised to find that Panasonic makes its first DSLR using the lens mount.But it matters little. Hey, I support the system too..ta ta...<p> The OM mount had a long life.Still lives on,like Dracula's daughter! on Halloween... What makes anyone suspect Olympus will toss out its high end entry after all the work. Its a camera and system for the few not the many who have big bucks in EOS glass. Or Minolta. Or Pentax. Or Leitz (note Epson entry and the Leica back.) If Tamron introduces a lens to fit great. I know that Metz and Quantum will have Olympus TTL flash units ultimately. But its a crap shoot market,not a big market to slice up anyway. Oly is taking a chance with its cash flow.<p> Give someone an E-1 for a week with a couple lenses and they won't want to give it back,even for a D 70..my bet,a case of pineapples,any takers? Also, only one place on Oahu has an E system camera now to be even looked at. That is a real shame. It is a fine system,deserving some scrutiny for new entrants in the SLR arena with open minds. Be well. Vote early and often. Not you,Bas.:-)

I see two reasons why Oly went with a smaller chip:

 

 

1. The imaging chip is the most expensive part of a DSLR and Oly was able to get considerably more chips out of a wafer at a lower price.

 

 

2. Oly has never competed head-to-head with Nikon and Canon. Oly put itself on the map with smaller 35mm manual focus SLRs that still have a cult following. Oly wants to produce a smaller line of DSLRs-an admirable goal.

 

 

Gerry, what makes me suspect Olympus would, based on low sales numbers, toss out its high end entry after all the work is that is exactly what Olympus did with its last SLR system- ever seen an Oly OM-77? In the process of dumping its 35mm AF line, Oly alienated a number of loyal customers and retailers.

<p><i>"the E-1 sensor is a weenie 5 Megapixels..."</i></p>

<p><i>"Bas, when you have a smaller chip with fewer pixels, you have less resolution. Some E-1 users on this site are fine with the E-1's resolution. I've shot a little with the camera now and am underwhelmed by the E-1's resolution."</i></p>

<p>I really don't believe I'm answering this, but Mr. Friedmann, you own a Nikon, don't you? In that case, your 6 mpixels "Not-So-Weenie" CCD gets cropped by your D70's fantastic viewfinder, at about 92%. That leaves you with 5.52mpixels. Then, when you print your photo on on an 8.5x11" sheet, you are left with a handsome 4.8 mpixels effectively on paper. Wow. Not so weenie after all, eh?</p>

<p>The E1 has limitations, all cameras have (even the 1DsMk2, unless you like hauling a 4lb brick). But it's never the sensor-resolution... Sensors are just the easiest to compare... in megapixels ofcourse. To match the E1 and its standard 14-54/2.8, what lens would YOU get on your D70? the 18-70/3.5-4.5 with its mustache distortion? or the 17-55/2.8 DX with its $1400 price tag?</p>

<p>Now why didn't Oly get their partners rolling? Simply because the E1 was their first try. It's hard to penetrate a market that has two major players spilling millions of marketing budgets... but NOT a camera that actually addresses REAL WORLD issues, such as dust, viewfinder coverage, weather proofing, for a price that's under $5k.</p>

"And image quality is the sum of both sensor and lenses. If I have less than $2000 to spend with the choice of 20D+17-85/4-5.6 or E-1+14-54/2.8, it's easy to see which of the two will get you sharp, contrasty pictures with the option of shallow depth of field when the image calls for it."

 

Bass: Both the E-1 and D70 will give sharp contrasty pictures with dof control. The 4/3 and APS-c sensors are comparable in size, it's the aspect ratio that is different and causes most of the confusion. For 4/3 on the short side of the sensor it is 13.1mm and 1920 pixels for a D70 it 15.6mm and 2000 pixels, NOT a big difference. Since the D70 is wider it has 6mp instead of 5mp but that does not mean more resolution.

 

Even though I like the more square format of the E-1 my problem with the 4/3 system is that even though it is supposed to be smaller and cheaper it isn't. Put a D70 with kit lens next the E-1 with kit lens. The D70 is only marginaly bigger and even with the latest Oly price cuts the D70 is still cheaper.

Peter, but the "kit" lens of the E-1 compares much closer in quality to the mentioned $1400 17-55/2.8 DX, not the Nikon kit lens! So you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

The same goes for DOF. Yes, the D70 with the 17-55/2.8 will give you more DOF. The Nikon kit lens that is not sharp untill stopped down from 3.5 to, say, 5.6 at the wide end and 8 at the long end, does not.

 

Andrew, when we are comparing cameras in this price range, you should be comparing 14/2.8 and 17/3.5, in which case the Oly actualy has a slight adavantage. (not to mention the fact that it is sharp wide open, Canikon kit zooms are not) That said, I could not care less about shallow DOF at the wide end as 99% of time you want both foreground and background sharp when you have that much in the frame. And at 100mm equiv, f3.5 (Oly) and f4.5 (unsharp Nikon kit) the DOF is virtualy the same. (both 3cm at 1m, 31 vs. 32cm at 3m) And it stays that way too when in both cases you use the short end of a 2.8 vs. 3.5 zoom lens.

I'm still scratching my head about why Leica and Schneider don't make lenses for the mount. Fuji too makes lenses and has done so for decades (yes, they even made 35mm screw-mount lenses). It could just be that Olympus assumed there would be fast primes from such makers and that's why they didn't make more themselves.

 

Quite a bit of the criticism levelled at this system boils down to it being different. People whose need is not photographic but to own a status symbol will of course want to own the camera most known to other anoraks. Those people are overrepresented in forums like this.

"Quite a bit of the criticism levelled at this system boils down to it being different." Quite so. It is not for the average shooter. Once you buy an E-1 and a couple lenses,then you notice you start writing haku verses on Starbucks napkins,drink sherry instead of Bud Lite, maybe even buy an Audi, and wear a Sierra Club T-Shirt. And no more proseletyzing,waste of time usually.<p> Just keep the camera and two lenses in your Domke bag and snap away...But to pontificate some, let us not forget the influence on the Japanese and global companies on the yen float,price of wan,and oil market and US securities vs R and D. It's well beyond me as I just take pictures. Aloha, Gerry ...check back in a year's time and we shall see what comes next.

If Schnieder will come out with a fast prime for my E1, I would buy it in a heart beat. Team that with a split-prism focus screen (Oly, ya' hearing me?), and it's a winner.

The resolution of the camera is probably a little low for anybody who likes to make big prints, but that's likely to be fixed in a couple of years since sensors just seem to be getting better and better. I really like the light weight of the system.

 

My real question is, are we going to get a decent variety of lenses? The ones that are there look great to me, and cover a lot of range. Their standard 14-54 is reasonably fast, for a zoom, and covers the popular shooting ranges, they have a 50mm f2 macro (35mm equivalant: 100mm), and those into long lenses are probably going to love the amazingly small, lightweight and fast 150mm (35mm equivalant: 300mm) telephoto. But are those of us who are always doing low-light stuff going to get our f1.4 lenses. (Well, and I guess we're still going to want a sensor capable of keeping up with ISO 3200 b/w film....)