4/3 vs APS vs 35mm Full Frame Sensors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by R2D2, Feb 14, 2004.

  1. R2D2

    R2D2 Guest

    Okay. The sensor debate continues.

    It was just announced that Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma have come aboard the
    4/3 platform for digital SLR camera systems. Each of these companies will
    bring something different into the 4/3 system. Obviously Sigma will mainly
    contribute affordable lens technology. Panasonic and Sanyo will help the
    electronics evolve. I am assuming that this all means that the Olympus
    mount will be standard. I wonder if Panasonic will bring Leica glass into
    the picture? If so, would they have their own mount?

    I don't mind Panasonic dragging Leica into the mix, but I REALLY hope Sigma
    does not drag Foveon into this picture. That would be a 4/3 killer for
    sure!

    Someone should put out a reasonably priced 4/3 body soon. Oly did not put
    out a cheaper body at PMA as some people were speculating. When there is a
    $500 DSLR body, will it be a 4/3 or will it be the 300D/D70 APS type?

    How do the noise levels at the various ISO level compare between 4/3, APS,
    and 35mm full-frame sensors?
     
    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. R2D2

    R2D2 Guest

    R2D2 <> wrote


    > Okay. The sensor debate continues.
    >
    > It was just announced that Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma have come
    > aboard the 4/3 platform for digital SLR camera systems. Each of these
    > companies will bring something different into the 4/3 system.
    > Obviously Sigma will mainly contribute affordable lens technology.
    > Panasonic and Sanyo will help the electronics evolve. I am assuming
    > that this all means that the Olympus mount will be standard. I wonder
    > if Panasonic will bring Leica glass into the picture? If so, would
    > they have their own mount?
    >
    > I don't mind Panasonic dragging Leica into the mix, but I REALLY hope
    > Sigma does not drag Foveon into this picture. That would be a 4/3
    > killer for sure!
    >
    > Someone should put out a reasonably priced 4/3 body soon. Oly did not
    > put out a cheaper body at PMA as some people were speculating. When
    > there is a $500 DSLR body, will it be a 4/3 or will it be the 300D/D70
    > APS type?
    >
    > How do the noise levels at the various ISO level compare between 4/3,
    > APS, and 35mm full-frame sensors?
    >


    And a link for reference.

    http://tinyurl.com/2gcdy
     
    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns948F9B445C36ER2D2starwarsjedi@130.133.1.4> on 14 Feb 2004 20:15:32 GMT,
    R2D2 <> wrote:

    >Okay. The sensor debate continues.
    >
    >It was just announced that Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma have come aboard the
    >4/3 platform for digital SLR camera systems. Each of these companies will
    >bring something different into the 4/3 system. Obviously Sigma will mainly
    >contribute affordable lens technology. Panasonic and Sanyo will help the
    >electronics evolve. I am assuming that this all means that the Olympus
    >mount will be standard. I wonder if Panasonic will bring Leica glass into
    >the picture? If so, would they have their own mount?


    The 4/3 lens mount is standardized, so there won't be any other mount.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Feb 14, 2004
    #3
  4. John Navas <> wrote in news:pvvXb.1414$_3.20689
    @typhoon.sonic.net:

    > The 4/3 lens mount is standardized, so there won't be any other mount.


    It is really nice that more now say that they shall use the 4/3 standard.
    But - I would not go so far to say that there will be no more mounts.
    The future is not esy to tell.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 14, 2004
    #4
  5. R2D2

    R2D2 Guest

    Roland Karlsson <> wrote

    >> The 4/3 lens mount is standardized, so there won't be any other mount.

    >
    > It is really nice that more now say that they shall use the 4/3 standard.
    > But - I would not go so far to say that there will be no more mounts.


    I agree.
     
    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004
    #5
  6. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns948FE630C8A6Brolandkarlssonchello@130.133.1.17> on 14 Feb 2004 21:37:43
    GMT, Roland Karlsson <> wrote:

    >John Navas <> wrote in news:pvvXb.1414$_3.20689
    >@typhoon.sonic.net:
    >
    >> The 4/3 lens mount is standardized, so there won't be any other mount.

    >
    >It is really nice that more now say that they shall use the 4/3 standard.
    >But - I would not go so far to say that there will be no more mounts.
    >The future is not esy to tell.


    It actually is easy to tell, since it *can't* be "Four Thirds" unless the
    standard mount is used; i.e., if someone did a camera with the same size
    sensor and a different mount, then that someone would have to call it
    something else. And only a real heavyweight like Canon could afford to go it
    alone that way.

    For more information on the Four Thirds system, see
    <http://www.four-thirds.org/>:

    The Four Thirds System is not based on existing standards for 35 mm
    film SLR camera system lenses, but instead establishes a new common
    standard for the interchange of lenses developed exclusively to meet
    the optical design requirements of digital SLR cameras.
    ...
    Lens Mount Standardisation

    By establishing an open standard for camera body lens mounts, the new
    system will make it possible to standardise lens mounting systems,
    something that has been impossible to achieve with digital SLR
    cameras that are based on existing 35 mm film SLR lens systems. At
    the same time, the new system standard will set a rule for both the
    image circle size (the diameter of the area in which the subject is
    resolved) and the back focus distance (the distance from the lens
    mount to the image sensor).


    Furthermore, standardization of the lens mounting system will make it
    possible for consumers to photograph combining with bodies and lenses
    produced by different manufacturers, and enjoy a wider range of product
    selection.

    In other words, if the lens don't interchange, then it ain't Four Thirds.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Feb 14, 2004
    #6
  7. R2D2

    R2D2 Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in
    news:wuxXb.1428$:


    >
    > In other words, if the lens don't interchange, then it ain't Four
    > Thirds.


    Sure, but what would stop...say Leica from putting out a 4/3 lens that is
    proprietary to only say Panasonic bodies. It can be done.
     
    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004
    #7
  8. R2D2

    leo Guest

    "R2D2" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns948FB593A5417R2D2starwarsjedi@130.133.1.4...
    > John Navas <> wrote in
    > news:wuxXb.1428$:
    >
    > >
    > > In other words, if the lens don't interchange, then it ain't Four
    > > Thirds.

    >
    > Sure, but what would stop...say Leica from putting out a 4/3 lens that is
    > proprietary to only say Panasonic bodies. It can be done.


    Then it can't be marketed as 4/3 system and may possibly be sued by Kodak.
     
    leo, Feb 14, 2004
    #8
  9. R2D2

    R2D2 Guest

    "leo" <> wrote in


    >> Sure, but what would stop...say Leica from putting out a 4/3 lens
    >> that is proprietary to only say Panasonic bodies. It can be done.

    >
    > Then it can't be marketed as 4/3 system and may possibly be sued by
    > Kodak.


    Just like all the Canon SLR bodies are sold with a pledge to be compatible
    with all EOS lenses.....then Canon put out those two proprietary dRebel-
    only EOS lenses. Of course, Canon won't sue themselves, but some of the
    users got short-changed.
     
    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004
    #9
  10. R2D2

    AArDvarK Guest

    "John Navas"
    > The 4/3 lens mount is standardized, so there won't be any other mount.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas
    > [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    > <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]


    It couldn't be the actual lens "mount" to the camera ... it's the
    type of lens elements as a standard, to how the are ground so
    the image circle matches the size of the 4/3 ccd/cmos ... I'm
    sure every maker will still have their own specific proprietary
    mount design.

    Alex
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 14, 2004
    #10
  11. R2D2

    leo Guest

    "R2D2" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns948FB924D9623R2D2starwarsjedi@130.133.1.4...
    > "leo" <> wrote in
    >
    >
    > >> Sure, but what would stop...say Leica from putting out a 4/3 lens
    > >> that is proprietary to only say Panasonic bodies. It can be done.

    > >
    > > Then it can't be marketed as 4/3 system and may possibly be sued by
    > > Kodak.

    >
    > Just like all the Canon SLR bodies are sold with a pledge to be compatible
    > with all EOS lenses.....then Canon put out those two proprietary dRebel-
    > only EOS lenses. Of course, Canon won't sue themselves, but some of the
    > users got short-changed.


    Not sure about your objection to EF-S lens mount. It's not a new mount for
    the sake of making things difficult but just comes out of necessity. They
    are cheap lens that take advantage of placing the lens closer to the sensor
    and smaller. BTW, what's the second EF-S lens?
     
    leo, Feb 14, 2004
    #11
  12. R2D2

    R2D2 Guest

    "leo" <> wrote

    > BTW, what's the second EF-S lens?



    I was thinking of the 55 - 200 mm F4.5 - F5.6 II USM because it was
    announced at the same time as the EF-S 18-55.
     
    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004
    #12
  13. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns948FB593A5417R2D2starwarsjedi@130.133.1.4> on 14 Feb 2004 22:50:46 GMT,
    R2D2 <> wrote:

    >John Navas <> wrote in
    >news:wuxXb.1428$:
    >
    >> In other words, if the lens don't interchange, then it ain't Four
    >> Thirds.

    >
    >Sure, but what would stop...say Leica from putting out a 4/3 lens that is
    >proprietary to only say Panasonic bodies. It can be done.



    Of course, but (1) it couldn't be called Four Thirds or 4/3, and (2) the
    economics would seem to be dubious at best. What would be the point?


    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Feb 15, 2004
    #13
  14. R2D2

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <b3yXb.16868$IF1.10153@fed1read01> on Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:20:49 -0800,
    "AArDvarK" <> wrote:

    >"John Navas"


    >> The 4/3 lens mount is standardized, so there won't be any other mount.


    >It couldn't be the actual lens "mount" to the camera ... it's the
    >type of lens elements as a standard, to how the are ground so
    >the image circle matches the size of the 4/3 ccd/cmos ... I'm
    >sure every maker will still have their own specific proprietary
    >mount design.


    As I wrote, the actual *mount* is standardized. (Read my other posts in this
    thread.)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Feb 15, 2004
    #14
  15. R2D2

    leo Guest

    "R2D2" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns948FC069DBEEFR2D2starwarsjedi@130.133.1.4...
    > "leo" <> wrote
    >
    > > BTW, what's the second EF-S lens?

    >
    >
    > I was thinking of the 55 - 200 mm F4.5 - F5.6 II USM because it was
    > announced at the same time as the EF-S 18-55.
     
    leo, Feb 15, 2004
    #15
  16. R2D2

    leo Guest

    "R2D2" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns948FC069DBEEFR2D2starwarsjedi@130.133.1.4...
    > "leo" <> wrote
    >
    > > BTW, what's the second EF-S lens?

    >
    >
    > I was thinking of the 55 - 200 mm F4.5 - F5.6 II USM because it was
    > announced at the same time as the EF-S 18-55.


    oop, forgot to put the answer in the last msg.

    I think it's a standard EF lens, isn't it? It's a good match to the kit lens
    in focal length.
     
    leo, Feb 15, 2004
    #16
  17. R2D2

    leo Guest

    "leo" <> wrote in message
    news:mtzXb.4107$...
    > "R2D2" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns948FC069DBEEFR2D2starwarsjedi@130.133.1.4...
    > > "leo" <> wrote
    > >
    > > > BTW, what's the second EF-S lens?

    > >
    > >
    > > I was thinking of the 55 - 200 mm F4.5 - F5.6 II USM because it was
    > > announced at the same time as the EF-S 18-55.

    >
    > oop, forgot to put the answer in the last msg.
    >
    > I think it's a standard EF lens, isn't it? It's a good match to the kit

    lens
    > in focal length.



    BTW, I read that this 55 - 200 mm lens is just an reissue of the old one
    used for the APS film camera which never took off.
     
    leo, Feb 15, 2004
    #17
  18. R2D2 wrote:

    > Okay. The sensor debate continues.
    >
    > It was just announced that Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma have come aboard the
    > 4/3 platform for digital SLR camera systems. Each of these companies will
    > bring something different into the 4/3 system. Obviously Sigma will mainly
    > contribute affordable lens technology. Panasonic and Sanyo will help the
    > electronics evolve. I am assuming that this all means that the Olympus
    > mount will be standard. I wonder if Panasonic will bring Leica glass into
    > the picture? If so, would they have their own mount?
    >
    > I don't mind Panasonic dragging Leica into the mix, but I REALLY hope Sigma
    > does not drag Foveon into this picture. That would be a 4/3 killer for
    > sure!


    Guaranteed!

    > Someone should put out a reasonably priced 4/3 body soon. Oly did not put
    > out a cheaper body at PMA as some people were speculating. When there is a
    > $500 DSLR body, will it be a 4/3 or will it be the 300D/D70 APS type?


    The latter.

    Fews

    --
    "...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
    the Ugly)."
     
    Fred A. Miller, Feb 15, 2004
    #18
  19. R2D2

    AArDvarK Guest

    I see, so if N and C were to buy into it, I could place a
    superior N lens onto the superior C body ... I wonder
    if it'll all work out as sweet as they'd like. It is also
    obvious that it is to create a new market concerning
    placing film intended lenses onto digital bodies...
    " mo munee" is really the only point. Because of that
    I don't approve, Kodak had it right for artistic uses with
    cameras like the dcs 760. The more freedom I have
    for artistic impression with whatever equipment I
    choose to use, the better.

    "Never feed the giants if you can get it just as good
    from the smaller guys" ... why not 3.9 cents per minute
    from a micro carrier? It works just as good!

    Alex

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message news:gTyXb.1443$...
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <b3yXb.16868$IF1.10153@fed1read01> on Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:20:49 -0800,
    > "AArDvarK" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"John Navas"

    >
    > >> The 4/3 lens mount is standardized, so there won't be any other mount.

    >
    > >It couldn't be the actual lens "mount" to the camera ... it's the
    > >type of lens elements as a standard, to how the are ground so
    > >the image circle matches the size of the 4/3 ccd/cmos ... I'm
    > >sure every maker will still have their own specific proprietary
    > >mount design.

    >
    > As I wrote, the actual *mount* is standardized. (Read my other posts in this
    > thread.)
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas
    > [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    > <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 15, 2004
    #19
  20. John Navas <> wrote in
    news:wuxXb.1428$:

    >>It is really nice that more now say that they shall use the 4/3
    >>standard. But - I would not go so far to say that there will be no more
    >>mounts. The future is not esy to tell.

    >
    > It actually is easy to tell, since it *can't* be "Four Thirds" unless
    > the standard mount is used; i.e., if someone did a camera with the same
    > size sensor and a different mount, then that someone would have to call
    > it something else. And only a real heavyweight like Canon could afford
    > to go it alone that way.
    >


    Oops - I was not clear enough. You and others misunderstood.

    The 4/3 is the 4/3. It migh be abused of course, but that
    was not my point. My point was that, even if 4/3 is successful
    and not abused, there will be other mounts. Nothing is for ever.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 15, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    705
  2. David J. Littleboy

    Full-frame sensors can't do wide angle - NOT!

    David J. Littleboy, Sep 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    1,297
    David Littlewood
    Sep 28, 2005
  3. Paul Flackett

    Resolution with APS sensor vs. full-frame

    Paul Flackett, Sep 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    985
    Kennedy McEwen
    Oct 1, 2005
  4. W (winhag)

    Vignetting on 'full frame' sensors vs. 35mm film test?

    W (winhag), Nov 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    882
    Lorem Ipsum
    Nov 15, 2005
  5. measekite

    Full Frame vs APS-C

    measekite, Sep 18, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    3,312
    Chris Malcolm
    Sep 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page