Cosina joins 43 consortium

[shawngibson]

<p>Interesting, wonder what it will mean in the future...Not sure what a manual focus lens will gain by having a native 43/m43 mount, if that's all it amounts too - the difference between the physical size of an added adaptor?</p>

<p>Sorry if this is a repost:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2010b/nr100826mfourthirdse.html">http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2010b/nr100826mfourthirdse.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Oops seems I was the second one to post on this. Sorry!</p>

[DWScott]

<p>I think it's great news. Hopefully it means we will see a digital Voigtlander Bessa R3A. The micro four thirds format is perfect for a REAL rangefinder camera (with optical viewfinder and rangefinder focussing).<br>

<a href="http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_asan6m4dvb.html">http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_asan6m4dvb.html</a></p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Technically, it's not a "consortium". Panasonic writes and publishes, everyone else read and builds. OK, that aside...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The micro four thirds format is perfect for a REAL rangefinder camera (with optical viewfinder and rangefinder focussing).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's not really "perfect". It isn't even "good". At micro four thirds size (22mm diagonal) you need insanely fast lenses to get even moderate DOF control. The new 25mm f0.95 has the DOF of a 50mm f1.9 on full frame.</p>

<p>But to nail focus when you cut the format size in half means doubling the precision of everything mechanical in the mount and rangefinder cam mechanism. To make it compatible with existing uFT lenses (not just Voigtlander lenses with added cams) you've got to have a motor driven rangefinder that can work with the "focus by wire" system in most uFT lenses.</p>

<p>It would be "interesting", but definitely not "perfect".</p>

[DWScott]

<p>Your logic is strong. By "perfect", feel free to read: "Cheaper than Leica"<br>

:-)<br>

And a chance to continue the evolution of the RD1.</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>But aren't most lenses for the micro 4/3 format relatively small in focal length, so that for typical f-stop settings they have a large depth-of-field even for the small 4/3 format? What is the depth of field for a standard 4/3 format lens at, say, f2.8?</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Benny, others can correct me if I'm wrong (which is quite possible) but I believe you basically drop 2 stops (in your head) compared to 35mm, when shooting 43/m43. In other words, a 2.8 on a 24x36mm setup would be like shooting 5.6. Or maybe it's one stop, ie f4, I forget. But suffice it to say because of the difference at the plane, you get less ability to go shallow. This is why PS cameras often have everything/mostly everything in focus in the most horrendous conditions (+ flash lol).</p>

<p>I would actually like to know the number here myself so I can work them into my shooting, i.e. if I want "f8 with 24x36 type shot", do I shoot at f4? Or 5.6? or?</p>

<p>As for the Voigtlander(s), I have always wanted to like these lenses, would buy them in a heartbeat, but I hear too often that the bokeh is bad. I'd like to see some examples of fast (max. f/1.4) Voigtlander lenses wide open on 43s, if anyone cares to share...the 1.1/1.2 offerings especially:)</p>

 

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>I would actually like to know the number here myself so I can work them into my shooting, i.e. if I want "f8 with 24x36 type shot", do I shoot at f4? Or 5.6? or?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's all linear with the crop factor. Going from FF to uFT, double the aperture, double the effective focal length.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Good to see some other lens crafter show interest in the micro 4/3 mount. Maybe Tamron will think about joining, as market grows.. If no electrical contacts, as I understand this baby, even with the impressive optical formula,and sturdy mount, I don't plan to sign up for pre order. My ED 50 mm F 2 with a Pana adapter is pretty nice actually on my G-1. Won't work down in the copper mines, no, but does fine enough indoors with no more than ISO 200 even w/o IS. F .95 sounds exotic . I would get bragging rights with that baby..mama, get me one for my birthday this Winter.</p>

[akira]

<p>One thing I'm concerned about the C/V 25/0.95 is its relatively short focus throw. According to my experiences with Ai-s Nikkor 50/1.2 and 50/1.8, it is VERY difficult to nail the focus manually at distant subjects (like 20-100m) on EVF, even magnified. Now I use an older Ai 50/1.8 whose focus throw is longer than those of Ai-s, and noticeably more comfortable to focus.</p>

<p>I would say that the conventional "circle of confusion" method for DOF doesn't apply anymore in the digital era, and DOF on the image sensor is thinner than a paper.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>When I put a Voigtlander 40 1.4 on my EPL1 and I get very decent DOF control at 1.4. Even better when I use a Olympus 50 1.8 at 1.8. Wipes the background out quick. You folks need another excuse to hate the 4/3 sensor.</p>

[rapyke]

<blockquote>

<p>You folks need another excuse to hate the 4/3 sensor.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. DOF is easily controlled with a good lens and some understanding of how to make a photograph...</p><div></div>

[rapyke]

<p>Another example...</p><div></div>

[rapyke]

<p>One final demonstration of bad bokeh on a 4/3 sensor...</p><div></div>