Hold the gravy train...

[james_kimber]

Stupid question time.

 

I keep reading that 4:3 is great and wonderful, yet I don't really understand

what the differences are between 4:3 and the full-frame everyone elses. I know

some of you say you could write novels (well, maybe not novels, but at least

short stories) about why 4:3 is superior and anyone who doesn't realize that is

missing out on life (and money). Then I also run into the ones who refer to 4:3

as "consumer market" cameras not intended for anything more than allowing the

average person who can focus a camera to call themselves a photographer (please,

no one get offended... I'm a loyal Olympus user too. I was quoting someone,

literally verbatim, off of another message board I frequent.)

 

What's the deal?

 

I always enjoyed the OMs, so I stayed loyal to Olympus in the digital world

since they never let me down in film photography. Apparently, that's not why

most people chose Olympus DSLRs.

 

Can someone explain the differences in Lamen's terms? I'm not a rock, but I'm

also far from brilliant.

 

All this educated talk is making me more confused.

[alan_krantz]

The primary differences is DOF. Before 4:3 the most common difference of this nature was medium format vs 35mm or large format vs medium format.

 

There are other "technical" differences relating to the probability of producing high iso sensors; ease of designing quality lenses and so forth. IMHO (many will disagree) in the end these factors cancel out but the DOF is the primary difference.

[richsimmons]

You can find the whole story here

 

http://www.four-thirds.org/

 

But in addition to what Alan said, Olympus' 4/3rd's concept is also an open source one, allowing others to enhance what they have started. The sensors on teh 4/3rds are significantly smaller than full frame, around 25% overall surface area and they are made to be completely digital from front to back. Allowing for smaller, lighter lenses with a higher crop factor (2x). A lot of people do not like the 4 by 3 ratio, preferring the "normal" 3 by 2. I like the 4/3 because I do a lot of montages and not having to crop the photo creates less work (as far as NTSC standards). There's more, but check out the site, it's pretty informative.

[jtk]

35mm is open source too...

 

If the logic behind 4/3 relies mostly on smaller size, why aren't the cameras and lenses smaller? Or are some of them?

[des adams]

I've always thought the real weakness with Olympus was their AF. Put the new AF from the E3 onto a E410 size body and I'd definitely be interested.

[skip_williams]

I'm a dedicated E-System user, but effectively, there's little practical difference between the formats for 90% of the typical buyers.

 

That said, there are some differences, which is why I've invested $10k in the system:

 

Superior ergonomics of the E-1, which is moot now as that camera is sold and I've already spent the money on lenses, etc. Also, the direct enlargement to 8x10 is nice most times, but a PITA at 4x6.

 

Supposedly lighter system? Only for the lenses, as the pro/almost-pro spec bodies are similar in size/weight. The 50-200/2.8-3.5 would be much larger in other systems. Ditto a 35-100 (70-200) f/2.0 or 150(300) f/2.0 lens. BUT....the pro-spec lenses like the 7-14/4 aren't svelte.

 

DOF - definitely greater in the 4/3 vs. 35mm: ~2 stops. ~1 stop vs. APS-C sensors. Helps in sports, hinders in wide-open portraiture.

 

Designed-for-Digital lenses - The lenses are all fully telecentric, which means that the WA's are very, very good, vs. Canon/Nikon where it's been hard to get a good WA until recently (I think). The open standard _should_ open the market for new lenses and alternatives. So far, it's been pretty poorly adopted by third-party makers.....unless there's some spec that's preventing them from porting lenses?

 

The other nice features embodied in the E-3 era: LV, dust reduction, in-body IS, fast AF, or ring-motor lenses are all features that Olympus has to have to stay competitive, not unique, system-level attributes.

 

Distinct disadvantages? Lower DOF for portraits. 1 stop disadvantage vs. N/C at high ISO (3200). I wish I had a 6400 option. FYI, 3200 cleans up very nicely and I actually use it without PP often for sports shots, preferring sharp, stop-action images to blurry ones. IS doesn't help.

 

In the end, My E-1 and now the E-3 are superb cameras that take great photos for me. But I could get the same results with a Canon 40D or Nikon D300, although my bag would be a few pounds heavier.

 

 

Skip

[david-w]

What started me off was the reliability, quality and ruggedness of the E1, especially in comparison to its competitor cameras.

 

When I left the E1 I stayed with Olympus for a different reason, the E510. It's very small and has absolutely everything I've ever wanted, many things the E1 couldn't supply.

 

I'm staying with them now because the lenses are so good. It may be some 4/3 'magic' or it may not, but regardless the 11-22 and 50-200 are just magical lenses and I would be hard pushed to find anything even remotely like them anywhere else.

 

David

[joseph_wisniewski]

Rich Simmons - "You can find the whole story here http://www.four-thirds.org/"

 

You can find anything but the whole story, there.

 

"But in addition to what Alan said, Olympus' 4/3rd's concept is also an open source one, allowing others to enhance what they have started."

 

No. Olympus's four thirds concept is protected by Olympus patents. Since the patents on the Nikon AF mount, the Canon EOS mount, the Pentax AF mount, and the SKaM (Sony, Konica, and Minolta) mounts have all expired, the four thirds system is the only current lens mount that is still under strong legal protection by its owner.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Skip Williams - "Supposedly lighter system? Only for the lenses, as the pro/almost-pro spec bodies are similar in size/weight. The 50-200/2.8-3.5 would be much larger in other systems. Ditto a 35-100 (70-200) f/2.0 or 150(300) f/2.0 lens."

 

Actually, they wouldn't. The only appearance of smaller lenses is due to mind games that Oly plays with apertures.

 

Look at it this way. The four thirds cameras have 1/2 the light gathering area of APS cameras, and 1/4 the area of full frame. Given equal sensor technology, you'd expect them to have a full stop worse low light capability than an APS camera, and two full stops less than a full frame. All published noise tests support this. So, the full frame user only needs a 300mm f4 where the four thirds shooter has to open up the 150mm f2. And, amazingly enough, the DOF is identical.

 

That pretty much does in the mythology behind Oly promoting their overweight and overpriced 300mm f2.8 as the equivalent of a 600mm f2.8 on full frame. There's no free lunch when it comes to telephotos.

 

Things get really weird when you look at wides and normals, though.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26304026

 

The fast normal on my full frame D3 is a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor. It's a very classic normal, a double Gauss, Nikon's version of a Zeiss Planar. Totally classic design, no exotic ED glass or aspheric elements. Old fashioned mechanical link autofocus. The physical specs are:

 

230g, 43mm long, 64mm diameter, and costs $289.

 

The one I prefer on the 1.5x crop D2X is a 30mm f1.4 Sigma. It's designed specifically as a normal for cropped sensor cameras, it's not comparable to a full frame wide angle like a 35mm f1.4 Nikon. It is a fully modern lens, with ED and aspheric elements, ring USM focusing. The specs are:

 

430g, 59mm long, 75mm in diameter, and costs $429.

 

A friend with a four thirds system has a Leica 25mm f1.4. Again, that's a normal built for a 22mm diagonal sensor, not a wide for 43mm full frame. Compared to the others, the thing is a monster:

 

510g, 75mm long, 78mm diameter, and costs $799.

 

The real kicker is that for situations where you want shallow depth of field, these three f1.4 normals are not at all equal. I won't get into the math about circles of confusion, but if you like the look of a 50mm f1.4 opened wide, you'd need about a 30mm f1.0 on a 1.5x crop camera, and a 25mm f0.7 on four thirds. Those lenses don't exist (and if they did, how much would they weigh, and how much would they cost?) so we can look at it from the opposite point of view. If the 30mm f1.4 on a 1.5x crop is "acceptable", we can use a 50mm f1.8 on the full frame, and that's a 155g, $89 lens. I can match the look of the 25mm f1.4 on four thirds by stopping the 50mm f1.8 down to f2.8, or by using a 45mm f2.8 AI-P Nikkor at 120g (and just 17mm long: they call it a "pancake" lens).

 

 

"DOF - definitely greater in the 4/3 vs. 35mm: ~2 stops. ~1 stop vs. APS-C sensors. Helps in sports, hinders in wide-open portraiture."

 

Actually, it hinders in most sports, too. You want to blur out all the advertisements festooning the sports arena, the fences around the tennis court, etc.

 

"Designed-for-Digital lenses - The lenses are all fully telecentric,"

 

Of course they aren't. If they were "fully telecentric", the exit pupils would be infinitely far from the sensor. Olympus calls them "near telecentric". It was actually a technique pioneered by Nikon, with the groundbreaking 17-35mm f2.8, years before the four thirds system.

 

Oddly enough, the telecentricity is the main reason that the size, weight, and cost of equivalent side angles actually goes up a bit on the four thirds system.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26354921

 

"which means that the WA's are very, very good, vs. Canon/Nikon where it's been hard to get a good WA until recently (I think)."

 

Nope, it's always been pretty easy to get good Nikon wides. Canon has simply placed more emphasis on telephotos, catering to the sports market.

 

"The open standard _should_ open the market for new lenses and alternatives."

 

This is quite true. The Nikon and Canon mounts, being much more open than the patented, trademarked, and copyrighted Olympus four thirds system, have much more open lens markets.

 

 

[john_robison3]

I'm also a longtime Olympus user but have been put off by the DSLRs, of Olympus or any make. It's not a size or weight issue, it's the interface with the BASIC exposure controls; shutter speed and lens opening! I want one control for each that does nothing else! Oh, and since I'm on my stump how about a properly damped manual focus option. Not a fly by wire ring. And no, I can't afford the bundle for the Leica, besides the focus on that lens is still fly by wire. That said, the 38mm flange to sensor distance means I can solve two of those three requirements by mounting my OM zuikos on a 4:3 body so I'll most likely wind up with a used E300 or some such contraption if I really want to dabble with digital capture.

[patrick j dempsey]

To answer your most basic question directly... 4/3s format uses a digital sensor dramatically smaller than "full-frame" 35mm film negative.

<br><br>

Here's an illustration from the wikipedia article on 4/3's format:

<br><br>

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/SensorSizes.png/428px-SensorSizes.png">

<br><br>

The smaller size of the sensor means that the lenses can be somewhat smaller than the lenses required for full-frame and "APSC sensor" cameras. That is the main benefit. The main downside is that since the sensor is smaller, the quality of the images will always be technically a little behind the quality of a larger sensor size. However, I think we are going to see a real plateau in sensor quality soon though, since there comes a point where more and more megapixels just makes for larger file sizes and not dramatically better quality images. At that point, the tiny sensors put into point-and-shoot cameras will be able to generate images of a similar quality to the large sensors into full-frame cameras, but the camera itself will just be more limited. Personally, I think Olympus is missing their chance to make REAL waves with the 4/3s format by not offering super compact cameras for their smaller format.

[james_kimber]

Wow... OK. This makes more sense. Thanks for the illustrations, Patrick. That helped a lot.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding then (and I'll admit, I haven't gone to that website that was strongly recommended and strongly not recommended in this thread). 4:3 sounds unattractive unless you live in a sunny climate where everything moves slowly (Florida? Arizona?). It basically sounds like 4:3 is slower and can't produce the DOF other makers can. What are the advantages then besides less weight? Or am I missing the big picture?

[leandro_dutra1]

Not so fast.

 

There is a lot of disinformation there. Four Thirds won?t gather less light; rather, it will concentrate light on a smaller sensor, and in doing so get light nearly telecentric, so there is less distortion and dimmness at the borders. Also, both telephoto lenses and bodies are smaller.

 

One paid a price in noise in older bodies, but the ones from last year (E-410, E-510, E-3) are nearly equivalent to the APS-C sensors, and still competitive with 24׳6mm ones (which are much bigger, heavier, more than double the price).

 

The E-3 with fast lenses is just the fastest reflex around in autofocus, and bar the 24׳6mm cameras with wickedly expensive glass.

[Brian]

Most people who weigh in on the dSLR formats debate have a vested interest in one system or another. Those who own the larger sensor cameras always make a big deal out of sensor size and always argue the comparison in terms of specs and numbers. If they were forced to compare full-res images to make their point they would have a much harder time of it. But what the heck. All these cameras are out there and you have a free choice. Whether it's a well-informed choice or not is up to you.

[leandro_dutra1]

Ah, and one more thing: the Four Thirds was never open source, only an open standard, and even that is debatable.

 

Now about the other mounts being effectively more open, I quite doubt it. In the first place, contrary to Four Thirds they were not meant to be; second, specs kept changing even in the film era, much more now.

 

I would like to have someone to a nice writeup on this.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Leandro DUTRA - "There is a lot of disinformation there."

 

Yes, there most certainly is.

 

"Four Thirds won?t gather less light; rather, it will concentrate light on a smaller sensor,"

 

In order to concentrate the same amount of light on a smaller sensor, it has to intercept the same amount of light. I just worked through this example on dpReview, so I'll repeat it here.

 

A 300mm lens on a full frame camera and a 150mm lens on a four thirds camera both cover an 8.25 degree cone of light. A lens with a 75mm opening captures the same amount of light on that 8.25 degree cone. That lens exists on both systems: on full frame it's a 300mm f4, on four thirds it's a 150mm f2.

 

"and in doing so get light nearly telecentric"

 

That's actually not a consequence of concentrating light onto a smaller sensor. In fact, it's quite the opposite, when you take the same "hole in space" and design equivalent lenses, one to transfer the image to a sensor 1/2 the size of the other, the one designed for the smaller sensor has the exit pupil move forward: it becomes less telecentric, not more telecentric. The lens designer has to add components and complexity to counteract this tendency.

 

"so there is less distortion and dimmness at the borders."

 

Actually, because of the increased complexity of the telecentric construction, you encounter more distortion, not less.

 

Now, many of the four thirds lenses are excellent performers, but they do it "in spite of" the telecentric construction, not because of the telecentric construction. The improved performance actually comes from something that my optics professor referred to as "the three year rule". Because more computer power (and better software) is available to the lens designers each year, in the last three years there have been more lens design computations performed than in the whole 2000 year history of optics before. Four thirds is just lucky in that they have more new lenses than most other systems. Nikon and Canon have some new lenses (I have the new Nikon 24-70mm f2.8, and it's nothing short of amazing, as is the new 14-24mm f2.8) but they also have some lenses in their lineups that are 20, 30, even 40 or more year old designs. (the Nikon 50mm f1.4 is positively ancient).

 

"Also, both telephoto lenses and bodies are smaller."

 

Well, only if you redefine "smaller" to mean "larger".

 

Compare my workhorse, the 70-200mm f2.8, to the Oly 35-100mm f2.0.

 

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 - 1470g, 87mm diameter, 215mm long.

 

Oly - 1650g, 96.5mm diameter, 213.5mm long.

 

Are you going to notice a 1.5mm (<1%) difference in length when the Oly weighs 180g (12%) more and occupies 20% more volume? The four thirds lenses larger, from wide to telephoto.

 

Take that Nikon 300mm f4 vs. Oly 150mm f2 I mentioned earlier. They both do the same job. Since they're both a 75mm "hole in space" covering an 8.25 degree cone, they have the same DOF. The Oly is faster, but it needs to be, because side-by-side the sensor is a good two stops slower than the Nikon. Same exact picture.

 

Nikon 300mm f4 - 1440g, 90mm diameter, 205mm long.

 

Olympus 150mm f2 - 1550g, 100mm diameter, 150mm long.

 

This one's harder to call, the Oly actually wins on volume, but loses on weight. I'd still give it to Nikon: after all, which is harder to hold, weight or volume? Which is harder to carry?

 

"One paid a price in noise in older bodies, but the ones from last year (E-410, E-510, E-3) are nearly equivalent to the APS-C sensors,"

 

Nope, they're equivalent to where APS sensors were a while ago. Shoot a Nikon D300, it will open your eyes.

 

"and still competitive with 24?6mm ones (which are much bigger, heavier, more than double the price)"

 

Competitive? Have you shot one of the full frame cameras?

 

"The E-3 with fast lenses is just the fastest reflex around in autofocus,"

 

Only if you let Oly define "fastest", by rigging the contest so the fastest Nikon and Canon lenses are excluded.

 

"and bar the 24?6mm cameras with wickedly expensive glass"

 

One defines "wickedly expensive" by comparing the Oly 300mm f2.8 to the Nikon or Canon 300mm f2.8 (both thousands cheaper than the Oly).

 

Normal "working" lenses, well, that 300mm f4 Nikon costs about 1/2 what the Oly 150mm f2.0 does. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is about $600 cheaper than the Oly 35-100mm f2.0, but the Nikon yields a full stop speed advantage that you'd need an Oly 35-100mm f1.4 to match.

[joseph_wisniewski]

"Now about the other mounts being effectively more open, I quite doubt it."

 

I have a pretty good spec for the Nikon mount, and for the Canon mount, including the AF protocols. I've build industrial cameras that interface to them.

 

I've written Olympus and Kodak many times, on company letterhead, requesting information on how to get access to the four thirds standard, what the NDA and licensing requirements were, and have gotten no response. I consider that to be a "plausible deniability" maneuver on the part of Olympus. I've written large companies many times on other licensing issues: sometimes I've been told flat out "no", sometimes been quoted license rates beyond my budget, and sometimes received reasonable enough rates to proceed. I'm not new at this.

 

"In the first place, contrary to Four Thirds they were not meant to be;"

 

Now you're making assumptions on what four thirds was "meant to be".

 

"second, specs kept changing even in the film era, much more now."

 

They can't change too much without breaking backwards compatibility.

 

"I would like to have someone to a nice writeup on this."

 

It will be a very one sided writeup: people who have tried to get access to the open four thirds spec (I'm not the only one) and received dead silence telling their story, while Oly hides.

[patrick j dempsey]

The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the amount of light it collects. The only thing that effects that is the f-number on the lens. An f/2 lens is an f/2 lens on a 4/3's camera or on a Hasselblad. The f-number combined with the ISO setting or the film ISO tells you dark you can shoot. And thats it. If you CHOOSE to buy slow lenses, that is your choice.

 

Secondly, one of the major benefits of the 4/3's format having a small sensor is that telephoto optics become dramatically smaller. So if you use a big huge 400mm lens on a full frame camera, and you want the equivalent for 4/3's... you only need a 200mm lens. In this case, it will actually be MUCH easier to get a fast 200mm f/2 lens than to get a fast 400mm lens. So in a sense, 4/3's cameras have the potential of being FASTER than full-frame cameras because extremely fast long lenses are harder to come by.

[skip_williams]

You know, Joseph obviously has a LOT more time than I do to think about this stuff and pontificate. Unfortunately, I don't have an hour to pick apart his posts and reply coherently, so I'm not going to try. I try to craft reasonable posts in practical language....maybe sometimes I use some superlatives that I shouldn't? I think I'll just stop posting here, I've only been around since 1998 on this forum and taking photos since the early 70's, obviously I'm clueless.

 

BTW, This type of exchange is why I have generally stopped posting or replying on online forums. There is ALWAYS someone who wishes to argue, pick apart postings, or have seemingly endless hours to do so. I unfortunately, have a full-time job, 2 teenagers, a mortgage, and a life.....and I love to take photos, not type online. I thought this place was different, but I have a poor memory, as it's happened here before and on other forums here too.

 

:-(

 

Skip

[joseph_wisniewski]

Hi Skip. It didn't really take much time, that's all stuff I prepared for other uses.

 

As far as your years on the forum and years taking pictures, I can match that, so I'm neither impressed not intimidated. But hey, if puffing a bit made you feel better...

 

If you want a forum where no one will upset you with opinions that differ from your own (I assume that's what you really meant by "Unfortunately, I don't have an hour to pick apart his posts and reply coherently") might I suggest...

 

http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/

 

http://www.fourthirds-user.com/