«

Olympus just recently announced the Micro 4/3 system. I found this is
an interesting development, particularly for those who like to have a
compact DSLR. Imagine an SLR which can fit into your pocket, with the
size of a Canon G9. If Olympus could develop zoom lens like their 25mm
pancake lens, it would be perfect for the DSLR world.

The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.
Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
with 4/3 system?
Does Kodak supplies the 4/3 system camera sensors to Olympus (I
thought Olympus DSLR's sensors were supplied by Matsushita/Panasonic)
What do Fuji and Sanyo help in promoting the 4/3 system?

Thanks for info and discussion.

<> wrote in message
news:c959436b-e6b9-4896-8147-...
> Olympus just recently announced the Micro 4/3 system. I found this is
> an interesting development, particularly for those who like to have a
> compact DSLR. Imagine an SLR which can fit into your pocket, with the
> size of a Canon G9. If Olympus could develop zoom lens like their 25mm
> pancake lens, it would be perfect for the DSLR world.
>
> The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
> Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
> Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
> and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
> lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
> Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.
> Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
> Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
> with 4/3 system?
> Does Kodak supplies the 4/3 system camera sensors to Olympus (I
> thought Olympus DSLR's sensors were supplied by Matsushita/Panasonic)
> What do Fuji and Sanyo help in promoting the 4/3 system?
>
> Thanks for info and discussion.

You are welcome to all the 4/3rds cameras they make, they just don't measure
up.

wrote:
>
> The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
> Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
> Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
> and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
> lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
> Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.

Leica put their name on some DSLRs (Digilux-3) designed by Panasonic
(with some minor changes to firmware).

> Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
> Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
> with 4/3 system?

Some Sigma lenses are available in 4/3 mount.
--
Alex Monro
Exeter, UK
Running on Linux (Kubuntu 7.1)

A fair bet would be before the recently announced Samsung EVIL
(Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) type camera, which is
intended to be shipped by late 2010.

<> wrote in message
> news:c959436b-e6b9-4896-8147-...
> Olympus just recently announced the Micro 4/3 system. I found this is
> an interesting development, particularly for those who like to have a
> compact DSLR. Imagine an SLR which can fit into your pocket, with the
> size of a Canon G9. If Olympus could develop zoom lens like their 25mm
> pancake lens, it would be perfect for the DSLR world.

The putative Mu4/3 camera designs exclude an optical TTL viewfinder, due
to the short registration (flange to sensor) distance of 20mm and hence
no space for a reflex mirror.
So Mu4/3 can't (at this stage) be considered for a potential DSLR design
candidate.
More likely to be an EVIL camera or (slightly less likely) a D-RF camera
(similar to the Leica M.

> The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
> Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
> Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
> and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
> lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
> Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.

It will probably follow the pattern followed by FourThirds:
Olympus puts out a few models, then Panasonic designs a camera around
the Olympus viewfinder design and then Leica re-badges at least one
Panasonic with a red dot logo.

> Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
> Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
> with 4/3 system?
> Does Kodak supplies the 4/3 system camera sensors to Olympus (I
> thought Olympus DSLR's sensors were supplied by Matsushita/Panasonic)
> What do Fuji and Sanyo help in promoting the 4/3 system?
>
> Thanks for info and discussion.

I suspect that if Mu4/3 takes off to any extent that Olympus and
Panasonic may just let the full-sized FourThirds fade away.
A Mu4/3 camera will obviously be cheaper to produce than a FourThirds
DSLR camera: No moving parts (IE: no flipping reflex mirror) or
penta-prism/mirror in the viewfinder path and presumably no mechanical
shutter either.

hankwilliams wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:54:53 +1000, dj_nme <> wrote:
>
>> A fair bet would be before the recently announced Samsung EVIL
>> (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) type camera, which is
>> intended to be shipped by late 2010.
>>
>> <> wrote in message
>>> news:c959436b-e6b9-4896-8147-...
>>> Olympus just recently announced the Micro 4/3 system. I found this is
>>> an interesting development, particularly for those who like to have a
>>> compact DSLR. Imagine an SLR which can fit into your pocket, with the
>>> size of a Canon G9. If Olympus could develop zoom lens like their 25mm
>>> pancake lens, it would be perfect for the DSLR world.
>> The putative Mu4/3 camera designs exclude an optical TTL viewfinder, due
>> to the short registration (flange to sensor) distance of 20mm and hence
>> no space for a reflex mirror.
>> So Mu4/3 can't (at this stage) be considered for a potential DSLR design
>> candidate.
>> More likely to be an EVIL camera or (slightly less likely) a D-RF camera
>> (similar to the Leica M.
>>
>>> The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
>>> Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
>>> Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
>>> and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
>>> lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
>>> Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.
>> It will probably follow the pattern followed by FourThirds:
>> Olympus puts out a few models, then Panasonic designs a camera around
>> the Olympus viewfinder design and then Leica re-badges at least one
>> Panasonic with a red dot logo.
>>
>>> Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
>>> Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
>>> with 4/3 system?
>>> Does Kodak supplies the 4/3 system camera sensors to Olympus (I
>>> thought Olympus DSLR's sensors were supplied by Matsushita/Panasonic)
>>> What do Fuji and Sanyo help in promoting the 4/3 system?
>>>
>>> Thanks for info and discussion.
>> I suspect that if Mu4/3 takes off to any extent that Olympus and
>> Panasonic may just let the full-sized FourThirds fade away.
>> A Mu4/3 camera will obviously be cheaper to produce than a FourThirds
>> DSLR camera: No moving parts (IE: no flipping reflex mirror) or
>> penta-prism/mirror in the viewfinder path and presumably no mechanical
>> shutter either.
>
> Unfortunately, unless they design all their lenses with a built-in leaf-shutter
> for high-speed photography and high-speed flash sync, this design is still a
> throwback to the dark-ages.

Leaf-shutter lenses are even more "dark ages" than focal-plane shutters.
What do you think the old large-format camera lenses have built into them?
The design dates back to the late 19th century.

Considering the market that Olympus is going after, it's far more likely
that they'll go with either their current shutter technology (already
developed = no extra R&D costs) or use electronic shuttering and have no
mechanical shutter at all.

> Where everyone will still be limited by focal-plane
> shutter distortions of anything that moves faster than the shutter, slow
> flash-sync, no true high-speed photography, annoying audible noise, shortened
> life-span of mechanical devices, et.al.

You are wrong and obviously have no knowledge of high-speed flash synch
with a modern (d)SLR camera.
All DSLR cameras can flash synch up to their maximum shutter speed with
the correct flash unit attached.
In fact, some of the later film SLR cameras could also high-speed synch
using the same technology.

> I won't buy one unless they are smart enough to get rid of last-century's
> archaic focal-plane shutter **** while removing that stupid mirror too.
>
> Otherwise it was an excellent idea. Too bad that they still haven't got it
> right.

Considering that it appears that Mu4/3 is aimed at a cheaper market
segment than the current FourThirds DSLR cameras, it is highly unlikely
that they will go down the path of leaf-shutter lenses.
Have a look at some of the historic precedents for leaf-shutter lenses
(definitely not from the cheap end of the market), then come back and
tell me with a straight face that you truly believe that Mu4/3 will use
this technology.
This is (of course) without any really solid announcement from Olympus
as to what sort of camera design the first Mu4/3 cameras will actually be.

All we actually know now is the flange to sensor distance and have some
web-sized pictures of the lens-mount and a wooden lens mock-up available
on the FourThirds website.
Nothing else, all is speculation.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:54:14 +1000, dj_nme <> wrote:

>Have a look at some of the historic precedents for leaf-shutter lenses
>(definitely not from the cheap end of the market), then come back and
>tell me with a straight face that you truly believe that Mu4/3 will use
>this technology.

No, instead you take a look at historic precedents for leaf-shutter lenses. In
the meantime I'll be looking at present technology used in Canon Powershot
cameras that have leaf-shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. The
recording is started electronically but ended with the closing of their synced
leaf-shutter. This was found by analyzing the bokeh from high-speed photography
done with these cameras. That's also with full-frame flash-sync, with flash
durations shorter than 1/224,000ths of a second on their S5IS model.

See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures for reference.

I'm not talking about that pseudo high-speed flash-sync that's been developed
for DSLR flash-units, of which you speak. But then I doubt that you'd know the
difference. Any subject moving in that fake high-speed DSLR X-Sync span of time
during the exposure will change its shape during the recording (focal-plane
shutter distortions) while the flash rapidly strobes to cover the full frame.
Others can worship that joke-on-all-DSLR-owners if they want. I know better. If
it takes 1/125th or 1/250th of a second for the shutter to expose the whole
frame, then that is the TRUE top speed of your camera's shutter, otherwise it's
just a moving aperture-slit. A camera could be designed with a focal-plane
shutter where it takes a full hour to move over the frame and the aperture-slit
made so narrow it could still be called 1/8,000th of a second exposure (top DSLR
speeds). It would not be false advertising. People like you wouldn't be the
wiser nor understand the difference. As long as it was packaged in a fancy
$20,000 camera you'd buy it and think this is how it should work. You'd just
have to wait an hour between shutter presses, and then explain to all others why
using this camera is worth the wait and the price. This is how the DSLR
focal-plane shutter works, but instead of an hour it happens in 1/125-1/250th of
a second so you aren't aware enough nor bright enough to understand why it's a
cheap trick. Your X-Sync speed is your camera's TRUE fastest shutter speed no
matter what it says on the shutter-speed selector.

I, on the other hand, want and require accuracy in my images. Not some
1/125-1/250th second, subject shape changing, distortion machine from last
century--anything designed around last-century's focal-plane shutter.

If they can do TRUE shutter-speeds electronically, at speeds as fast or faster
than 1/40,000th of a second then more power to them. Until then I'll use an
inexpensive Canon Powershot camera with those leaf-shutter speeds already
available.

With luck they might manage to catch-up to 3-years-old technology in their
proposed "wave of the future" M4/3 design.

Essentially you are a no-nothing anti-DSLR camera troll who will take
any (no matter how tenuous) chance to bash on a fictional shortcoming.
Welcome to the killfile.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:19:09 +1000, dj_nme <> wrote:

>Essentially you are a no-nothing anti-DSLR camera troll who will take
>any (no matter how tenuous) chance to bash on a fictional shortcoming.
>Welcome to the killfile.

To the contrary, I know quite a bit more than you do. Your reply reveals the
depths of your ignorance and lack of any real experience with the equipment that
you wrote about.

Focal-plane shutter distortions aren't real?

Then study this image.

http://images.wikia.com/chdk/images/...istortions.jpg

Pay particular attention too to the tail-rotor and its corresponding shadow on
the ground. They are 90 degrees from each other. I guess that's how reality
looks to you through your focal-plane shutter camera and you are quite content
with that. I require more precision and less distortion of reality than that.

Oh wait, you won't see this post. You have decided to poke your own eyes out to
make yourself even more ignorant. Some people just can't handle the truth.

Your loss.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:14:21 -0400, "bino" <> wrote:

>"hankwilliams" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:19:09 +1000, dj_nme <> wrote:
>>
>>>Essentially you are a no-nothing anti-DSLR camera troll who will take
>>>any (no matter how tenuous) chance to bash on a fictional shortcoming.
>>>Welcome to the killfile.
>>
>> To the contrary, I know quite a bit more than you do. Your reply reveals
>> the
>> depths of your ignorance and lack of any real experience with the
>> equipment that
>> you wrote about.
>>
>> Focal-plane shutter distortions aren't real?
>>
>> Then study this image.
>>
>> http://images.wikia.com/chdk/images/...istortions.jpg
>>
>> Pay particular attention too to the tail-rotor and its corresponding
>> shadow on
>> the ground. They are 90 degrees from each other. I guess that's how
>> reality
>> looks to you through your focal-plane shutter camera and you are quite
>> content
>> with that. I require more precision and less distortion of reality than
>> that.
>>
>
>I can point out a dozen other helicopter photos where this distortion is not
>apparent

I'm sure you can. In those photos the blade-speed in that type of helicopter is
much slower. If not then the photographer is using such a slow shutter-speed as
to blur their motion so you won't notice this common problem. I have many of
those photos myself. It's how I used to work around the problem. Many other
photographers still do, they have to if they are using a focal-plane shutter
camera.

>--choosing one photo where it is does not make the case. The very
>fact that tens of thousands of photographers have used slrs to take such
>images successfully over the last several decades would clearly indicate
>this problem exists more in your head than anywhere else.

The problem clearly exists in the design of the camera and nowhere else. Unless
you believe that I imagined the photo that I linked to. If so then you have some
serious psychosis issues.

> Certainly, there
>would be reasons in scientific studies to avoid focal plane distortion, but
>I highly doubt your wants and needs for accurate images approaches anything
>like that. I don't know that for sure, though, so do tell us what it is you
>need such accuracy for.

You should know from a previous post that I frequently use shutter speeds as
fast as 1/40,000th of a second (now that it is easily possible with a
consumer-grade camera). If you don't know what kinds of subjects require shutter
speeds that fast then there's really no point in my entertaining you on the wide
variety of subjects that do require those speeds. Besides, why should I give you
free ideas of the kinds of ground-breaking photography that I do? Then you'll
all be wanting to do it. Educate yourself, think outside of the box, if you can.
I have a penchant to get photographs that no other photographers will bother to
tackle. They lack the skill and the equipment needed to obtain them. But more
usually, they lack the creative ability to imagine that obtaining them is even
remotely possible and/or what camera capabilities would be needed even if they
did think of trying to capture those subjects. They know no better. They've been
crippled by their chosen equipment all their lives and are now blinded to the
possibilities. The kind of photography that I do is outside of their realm of
experience and equipment. They are quite content to waste their lives
entertaining some spoiled-brat addle-brained bride and her equally addle-brained
bridesmaids with their cameras. They can't see beyond that field of mundane and
spirit-crippling photography anymore.

>
>I myself have been shooting with slrs since the late 70's, and have never
>once had noticeable focal plane shutter distortion.

That only reveals the fact that you don't do much photography of a wide variety
of subjects and certainly none in fast motion. A creative photographer that
pushes their skills and equipment to the limits would frequently run into the
focal-plane shutter distortion limitations and all the drawbacks caused by the
lack of true high-speed flash-sync. I know I have, most all my life. Why do you
think I find it so offensive? There's no other reason.

> Further, a search of
>rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a group that was once comprised of primarily
>professional photographers (no longer), and which has been archived for over
>a decade, shows zero posts complaining about focal plane shutter distortion,
>and only one post that even mentions it.

Yes, it's something they just love to sweep under the rug so they can continue
to worship the equipment that they invested so much money and time on. See no
evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Most seasoned SLR photographers (myself
included when that's all I had) know the myriad ways in which you can disguise
the problem. This is why none of them complain about it, they found convenient
ways to cover it up. Or more often they lack the creative skills and talent to
have never ran into it before. I've long ago grown-up in my photography needs
and skills and won't tolerate that nonsense in my own photography equipment
anymore.

Lets compound the problem with a lack of TRUE high-speed flash-sync in all
focal-plane shutter cameras. But that's for another discussion, and a whole
other branch of subjects that makes photography of them impossible without true
high-speed flash-sync.

You can keep your focal-plane shutters. My skills and creativity have outgrown
them, decades ago. Now I'm just waiting for the manufacturers to design a camera
that can keep up with my abilities and found subject matter. That needed design
won't be found in any DSLR, I assure you of that. Been there, done that. It's
why I moved onto advanced fixed-lens leaf-shutter cameras that can do more and
do it better, when I am allowed to do my own programming on them (via CHDK
recently). My only hope now is that they make the M4/3 design equivalent in
capabilities to, or exceeds the capabilities of, what I already own. Then the
smaller sensor drawbacks of present-day models, though only a slight drawback in
my book, will also be a thing of the past. That's the one last minor hurdle to
get beyond. If the M4/3 designers put in a focal-plane shutter then all is lost,
it's back to square one. If so I'll end-up making do with what I've already
found and they can keep every last one of their new, but archaic, M4/3 cameras
that they put on the shelves. I won't buy one with a focal-plane shutter in it.
I don't buy into newly-packaged detriments. I only buy into new assets. I'm no
fool.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:13:31 -0400, "bino" <> wrote:

>"hankwilliams" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>
>There are several things we can tell from your post, the foremost of which
>is that you think an awful lot of yourself and very little of others.

"Nothing splendid has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe that
something inside them was superior to circumstance."

Besides, it's not my fault that 99.99999% of all other photographers' work that
I've ever viewed rates a 99 to 100 on the lame-ometer. It's even easy to see
their lack of ability just by what features they value and want in their
equipment. When I read from or talk to other photographers I silently chuckle to
myself, thinking, "They'll never get photos of these, or this, or them, or
those, or even that, with what they want in their cameras. How can they be so
freakishly blind." They don't think things through clearly enough. Or else they
just senselessly choose what all others have told them that they need all their
lives.

But most often their foremost and only goal is trying to impress others with
what they bought instead of what they can do with it. They have no talent. They
only want attention like some frightened and ignorant infant screaming in a
crib. One which is trying to show anyone at all their shiny new rattle, but in
truth nobody really cares so they only scream louder and louder. When that
doesn't work then they grab another rattle, hopefully more colorful, more shiny,
and more loud and wave that around in the air. All the while hoping again that
someone will finally notice their lifelong attention-tantrum, because that's the
only skill that they'll ever possess and develop in their meaningless lives.
These newsgroups and the internet in-full have thousands if not hundreds of
thousands or even millions of that kind of "photographer".

Zero creativity. Zero thinking for themselves. Zero originality. Zero talent.
Zero focus. Zero goals. Zero values. Zero growth. ... Yes, pretty much zeros all
around.