Why only Olympus has a 4/3 system cameras

[chip l.]

For many people the 6mp APS-C sensor can give great prints, even large ones. So the 4/

3's from Oly will be able to so the same, because if you "crop" a 35mm/APS-C image to a

8x10 format you have effectively reduced the 6mp sensor to 5mp.

[david_lau3]

The problem of the 4/3 system is not the ratio but the size of the sensor. Every item in the system is designed towards the small (now relatively small but in the future absolutely small) size sensor (18X13.5mm). There is no growth path to move up to a larger sensor.

 

A larger sensor (full frame) has no magic but can produce higher resolution and better quality images with lower noise. Now it is very expensive but definitely will be a lot cheaper in the future. Can the small 4/3 sensor match in resolution and quality? Up to a certain extend only, may be 8MP.

 

When the larger sensor becomes affordable in the future, the 4/3 users are stuck with the small sensor because all the lenses are designed for this sensor size. There is simply no upgrade path available.

 

Again some will say 5-8MP is what they ever need. If this is the case then it is fine. Enjoy the 4/3 system for a long time.

 

So other than Olympus who wants to make big investment in a system that has no growth path?

[GerrySiegel]

David Lau's comments present the usual circular argument. The larger the sensor, the better the quality. Therefore, camera makers and users should not settle on anything smaller than the old 35mm standard (setting aside the Medium Format sensors). Olympus has chosen a standard that is not full 35 mm frame. This size sensor eliminates larger sensors in that camera (it follows as the night the day). Therefore, since small is never going to be what the future holds, Olympus is a poor choice. And I heard that from Mr Reichman too. It is all geometry,not picture taking. So QED. Larger is better, any standard that is not the largest possible is less better. And if you can't buy the logic, buy a 1/3 carat diamond in a georgeous setting to impress your loved one,forget that metaphor,sorry,got carried away.)<p>( I am sorry David,but all these arguments are sub optimizing the whole digital mechanism,which has a few more variables than you offer.<p> What about those who want a quiet mirror? Then smaller has some advantages. Smaller lenses are easier to make in large aperture. (See Hasselblad web site) And the beat goes on:-).How big is big enough? I don't know. ((Ask Pfizer which makes Viagra...:-))Gerry, a nano- person!

[david_lau3]

Bigger sensor is better in terms of image quality. Yes, smaller sensor may mean other advantages. We have already seen interesting and attractive small cameras, such as the Pentax 110 SLR and the Minox. However, they are not belonging to the mass market.

 

Is it a problem for being a niche market product? Not really so long as the users are aware of its shortcomings and believe that the advantages in being small outweigh them.

 

If money is of no concern I will buy an E-1 and love it. Unfortunately I only have sufficient to invest in one camera system so have to choose one that I hope will suit my need for a longer time.

[melvin_bramley]

Check out www.uschold.com. It will have to be translated as it is in German.All in all it compares Canon D60 with various lenses to Fuji S2 with various Nikon Lenses & the Nikon D100 with the same lenses as the S2.To complicate things they compare these cameras to the "digital specific" Olympus E20!!All I can say is that what a difference a sensor makes! What a difference a "digital specific" lens makes. The lowly Olympus E20 compares very well to better!!

Compare this to cheaper,faster,glass a better viewfinder than most & I think that the E1 is both underestimated & undersold.

[melvin_bramley]

Try this...www.uschold.com/pdf/ReportSLRPublic09.02N.pdf

[kelly_flanigan1]

Kodak is a lens maker too; going way back to the 1930's. <BR><BR>A removeable lens digital camera has radically more warranty repair problems due to dust; than fixed P&S digitals.

[franka t.l.]

Melvin,

 

Your observation is both correct and matter of fact.

 

However, in real world application, almost all up to date DSLR can produce quality and good enough image for most application. This is what I would call the threshold of quality. Once you've achived that, any further performace advantage ( real or pure technical / Theoratical ) is of little consequence unless its for reason of absolute neccessity.

 

Olympus 4/3 system can easily be fitted into this category. As a photographer goes. How much better the lens are made or how much better the system are count no more than how good the Image come around. And at the same time the 4/3 is not giving the supposed advantage of more compact system ( providing the same functionality and performance level ) or overall more economical as a system. So all in all that technical advantage Olympus had strived to achive simply vanish in real world application. Not to mention they probably placed their entry at too high an entry ( in term of price bracket ). IMHO Olympus intent to exploit the digital phtographers market is fouled by its product marketing and simply by not forward thinking enough when launching the system. ( By that I don't mean the technical aspect, but the market trend, customer expectation etc ... )

[erich_keser1]

Olympus is not the mega-company that Canon or even Nikon is. With smaller

marketting, research and high-tech production budgets, they have partly

managed to survive--even occasionally lead--in the small camera sector by

being particulary innovative in exploiting, sometimes even creating niches.

 

The Olympus PenFT was one such niche market. It provided small, almost

pocketable, SLR system as Nikon and Canon's bodies and lenses kept

getting bigger and heavier. While the PenFT system was not at the

technological or construction level of Nikon and Canon's best, it was

impressively well designed and built, except for two achilles heels:

 

1) the small 24mmx18mm (note the ratio!) image size was too small and

grainy for large/really "snappy" final images under many light conditions,

especially with colour slide film for projection and publication.

 

2) the innovative porroprism produced a tunnel-like image which the beam-

splitter metering design necessitated by TTL metering further dimmed to such

an extent that the meterless Fv variant wita fully silvered mirror became

popular.

 

Olympus did learn from this, and did dare another experiment. The OM-1 had

an impressively bright viewfinder, and quiet shutter and was the center of a

singularly compact and lightweight system ergonmically reminiscent of the

best Leicas that shook the whole industry.

 

The niche: I cycled through southern England with a OM-2 and Oly 24/f2,

35f2, macro and 85 f2 lenses in a Vivitar hard case designed for a single

Nikon F strapped to my side, and a stowed Leitz table tripod, shooting

hundred of pastoral scenes, buildings, candids and late night cityscapes,

sometimes without getting of the bike. England is (was?) a country of hills,

back roads and rain: I'd never have made it with a Nikon's F3 or Canon F1

system! And, by the way, I found myself often masking--especially

vertical--slides and almost always cropping enlragements from the awkward,

elongated 2:3 ratio 35mm imposes, to a more managable and esthetically

pleasing 4:5.

 

Olympus pushed on with the OM series for over two decades, culminating in

the OM 4Ti which I still regret selling to get a Nikon F70 and then F80.

Alongside their unfortunate mistep into auto-focus, they also produced a

number of decent-quality fixed-lens all-in-one zoom reflex cameras and the

little tessar-lensed 35mm (lens) stylus, as well as their many film and digital

point-and-shoots.

 

I now have a few Nikon lenses, so looked at their D70, but hated what the

smaller sensor did to my wide lenses. So I also tried the hi-tech leader at

manageable price levels, the Canon D20. Both have the expected looks and

lots of features, and both lack any fundamental innovations, and both are

obvious compromises with production economies.

 

They dump on us the surplus production of bodies with the large mounts

necessary for lenses to cover the awkward 35 mm "double frame 2:3' film

format ---apparently the result of a 1916 hiker trying to squeeze out every mm

out of 35mm cinematic film for panoramics--and the elongated bodies

necessary for the film itself---rather than invest in really new designs. And

then give us with cameras that only provide the central two-thirds of the

images that these bodies and original lenses were designed for...

 

I 'm trying to move to the high res, low noise D20, but he E-1 system handles

so well that I keep coming back to it. It does not suffer from the basic design

compromises that undercut the D70 and D20 . It also feels more solid than

either, has a superbly bright and uncluttered (by flashing red dots, etc,) nearly

100% viewfinder and comprehensive, pro -level weather-sealing.

 

With the E-1 Olympus has provided us with a well-thought out, impressively

solid photographic tool. The Evolt, which rather reminds me of the PenFT

(note the porroprism!) and such OM development sidesteps as the

"consumer" OM10, may be a less than adequate follow-up. Let 's hope that

they continue to improve and sell it, and that they have the resolution and the

means to come up with an updated-sensor E-2. Such fresh and rational

redesign is urgently needed. <div></div>