4/3

[robert_potts1]

If I am not mistaken, 4:3 is available in some of the expensive digital backs for medium format. The medium format digital cameras that Pentax and Mamiya will soon introduce will be 4:3. The 4:3 ratio is pretty good, but wouldn't 4:5 be better? It looks like the new standard will be 4:3. However, I don't think it will be the Olympus with its itty bitty sensor and pixels. Nice equipment in a way, but not practical enough.

 

I deplore 2:3 because more than half of the images I capture are vertical in orientation and I find the proportions for this awkward as Heck. I don't see why Nikon or Canon doesn't simply offer a 4:3 sensor option that can be used with their lenses in one of their camera bodies. I hope the digital revolution will allow us to finally shake off 2:3 which WAS NEVER a good idea in the first place.

[ky2]

<i>"None of the professional and advanced dSLR and Oly owners I know personally (and I know a lot of them) are planning any more investment in their gear aside from a lens or two..."</i><br><br>That is true for 99.95% of the entire camera market, and most of those who constantly consider switching entire systems, don't make a living off photography.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Robert - "I hope the digital revolution will allow us to finally shake off 2:3 which WAS NEVER a good idea in the first place."

 

Oh, digital will help us shake off 3:2!

 

There's already one 16:9 point and shoot on the market, and a second one is about to launch. Within a few years, 3:2 will be a specialty format, because it's too close to square, and too close to the rapidly fading 4:3 "idiot box" format.

[peter_white2]

I'd like a focusing screen with a frame for the 4/3 proportion. Then I can more easily frame for 3/2 or 4/3. No need for a separate camera. I suppose I could pop the screen out of my 20D and scratch it. ;-)

[peter_white2]

For those who might be unaware, the 16:9 format makes a lot of sense, since that's the HDTV format.

[Spearhead]

It seems that some people commenting here don't understand what the 4/3 format is. While the number refers to a ratio, it also refers to a specific sensor size, not an arbitrary ratio for any sensor. The sensor size is fixed at 18x13.5 mm. It's a small sensor and isn't going to get any bigger.

[bobatkins]

<em>the 16:9 format makes a lot of sense, since that's the HDTV format</em>

 

<p>

Only if you want to show your (horizontal landscape) images on TV

[yourfavephotog]

Bas said:

<P>

<I>"Andrew, there is more wrong than with lack of bodies. Yes, there were a few SLRs but no "EF-S/DX" lenses, which the system would have needed badly."</I>

<P>

Both Canon and Nikon made "IX" lenses specifically designed for their APS bodies.

<P>

<I>"Add to that that APS didn't support slide film; in fact, I don't think there were any professional emulsions at all."</I>

<P>

Fuji made APS slide film for quite a few years. It certainly wasn't the best selling film on the planet, but to say that the APS format did not "support" slide film is false.

[peter_white2]

Bob,

 

That's right. And I think many digicam shooters rarely thinks to turn the camera to vertical. So for the average digicam shooter, it's ideal for viewing those images on his HDTV screen.

 

Clearly the concept is useless if people know to occasionally turn the camera ninety degrees. ;-)

[basscheffers]

Ryan, I can't find any "IX" lenses that were wide enough, ie: 17mm at the wide end. Canon introduced the 24-85/3.5-4.5 for the format, giving you an equivalent focal length that is a whopping 38mm!

 

Just because the film is there doesn't mean it makes sense. Sure, you could scan it with and APS film scanner, but from a roll of APS film, how do you cut out and mount that slide to send to a client? That is what pros did in those days (and in many cases still do!) to get their images to a client.

[melvin_bramley]

For what reason is the 4/3 format a "niche" market? If the camera provides "you" with the image quality "you" require what difference does it make? It's like saying that 6x4.5 film is inferior to 6x6! Nikon & Canon plus others are using the,now defunct,APS (in film) format & suddenly the format is just great! Many years ago the 24x36 negative was considered a novelty but films improved & so "could" 4/3. We ,in digital, have seen little so far!

[jcuknz]

I was looking at a write up of the new FZ30 from Panasonic and they off you the alternatives of working in 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 so no doubt that will come to most in time :-)

[basscheffers]

JC, the new Oly "creative compacts" seem to offer a 3:2 mode too, like the FZ-30 you mention. That is all good and well, but in the end, it is nothing more than a crop from the full sensor; nothing you couldn't do in photoshop.

 

I guess the only advantage is that the EVF or LCD will switch to the format, making framing easier.

[hakon_soreide]

CCDs should be square and then you could choose your crop afterwards. That way today's 2:3 8 megapixel sensors would be 1:1 12 megapixel sensors with the same sensor pixel size.<p>

Anyway, this discussion didn't originate as a ratio discussion, rather than a system discussion, and however good Olympus' system might be, its raison d'etre got severely downsized when the bigger APS-C size sensors suddenly became something everyone could afford.<p>

For those wanting to limit themselves to a few zoom lenses and primes it's a rather good buy these days, though, but I doubt Oly will find it worthwhile to sustain this system in view of its current competition, and noise at higher ISOs? People still use compacts with their subminiature-size CCDs and produce good pictures from them for anything except oversize prints that hardly anyone ever makes.<p>I wonder if it's the same people who almost exclusively used Velvia at ISO 50 that nowadays complain about noise at ISO 400 and above in digital cameras?<p>

Hakon Soreide<br>

Bergen, Norway<br>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

[peter_phan]

<i>What technology will be coming along that will enable Olympus and the other 4/3 players to compete against the larger sensors with their large photosites? </i>

<p>

It's difficult to get around physics. Smaller photosites capture less light, requiring higher amplification, resulting in more noise. Whatever advancements that can be applied to smaller sensors to improve their performance can also be applied to larger sensors to improve their performance.

<p>

But why limit your options with 4/3 in the first place? Go with a system that offers various sensor options, like the Canon system, because that leaves your options open in the future.

[joseph_albert]

If this format dies, what I think will kill it is that nobody else is using it. Most likely, there won't be many (if any?) 3rd party lenses for these cameras, and photographers may fear investing in lenses for a format that may not keep up with the pack in image quality and whose future is uncertain.

<p>

The sensor size seems to have been chosen based on having reasonable size lenses that have no reduction in image quality moving from center to corner. This is because the lenes for this camera actually have a larger image circle, so that the sensor is capture what we normally think of as the center of the image. You also stop down 2 stops less than 35mm to get the same depth of field, so ISO 400 on 4/3 is like having ISO 1600 with 35mm if you use the same shutter speed. That is, if you hold depth of field and shutter speed fixed, then the 4/3 camera only needs to show less noise at ISO 400 than a "full frame" DSLR at ISO 1600. If course you only need to hold shutter speed fixed in the comparison if you are shooting handheld near the speed limits of handholdability.

<p>

Just like a film shooter might want to have a medium format outfit for highest quality or greatest enlargeability, and 35mm for ease of carrying the gear and convenience in use, a digital shooter might want a larger sensor camera to use in applications one might shoot in medium format film, and a smaller camera like a 4/3 sensor for handheld work-- photojournalists, sports and action photographers, travel and street shooters all could make good use of the format.

<p>

But that doesn't mean they will. Time will tell.

[bobatkins]

"<em>and a smaller camera like a 4/3 sensor for handheld work</em>"

<p>

But, for example, the E-1 is 141 x 104 x 81 mm and weighs 660g, while the Digital Rebel XT not only has a larger sensor, but is smaller (126.5 x 94.2 x 64mm), lighter (485g) and less than 1/2 the price.

<p>

Even the Evolt E-300 is 147 x 85 x 64 mm and weighs 580g.

<p>

So far, the Olympus 4/3 cameras and lenses are no smaller, lighter or cheaper than APS-C format DSLRs

[robert_meyers]

?"and a smaller camera like a 4/3 sensor for handheld work"

But, for example, the E-1 is 141 x 104 x 81 mm and weighs 660g, while the Digital Rebel XT not only has a larger sensor, but is smaller (126.5 x 94.2 x 64mm), lighter (485g) and less than 1/2 the price. ?

Bob, you don?t normally post something in this class. Compare an apple to an apple. The E-1 was not aimed at the same segment as the XT. One is a light digi-cam fighter and the other was meant as a mid-range pro camera (something for which there was no segment until it was released, and the D2H finally lowered into the same price range). The E-1 is 36% heavier, but is also metal, and has weather sealing.

 

I have no ida what was up with the size and weight of the E-300.

[basscheffers]

"So far, the Olympus 4/3 cameras and lenses are no smaller, lighter or cheaper than APS-C format DSLRs"

 

See, that is where you are wrong Bob. Sure, it is no smaller and lighter than a 20D with kit or other consumer zooms, but you can't compare the 14-54 to a consumer zoom. You have to compare it to the 24-70 in image quality and compared to that it certainly is a lot smaller and lighter.

 

And the E-1 body is also a lot lighter than the competion's models that offer the same build quality and weather sealing.

 

And as for price, the two main zoom lenses on their own certainly are a lot cheaper than the competition's offering that are in the same class and the E-1 kit with 14-54 is a lot cheaper than a comparable _system_ from, say Canon. To compete with the E-1 system's price, you have to go for second best lenses in the Canon range, like the two f/4L zooms that leave a big gaping hole between 40 and 70mm. And neither are as fast as the Olympus lenses, which have a better zoom range to boot.

 

I don't know what maths and price lists people use when they state that the E-system is more expensive, or at least not cheaper...