Micro 4/3 system - when the first camera will come out?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@gmail.com, Sep 1, 2008.

  1. Guest

    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.
    , Sep 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pete D Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Pete D, Sep 1, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alex Monro Guest

    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)
    Alex Monro, Sep 1, 2008
    #3
  4. dj_nme Guest

    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:...
    > 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 M8).

    > 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.
    dj_nme, Sep 1, 2008
    #4
  5. dj_nme Guest

    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:...
    >>> 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 M8).
    >>
    >>> 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 shit 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.
    dj_nme, Sep 2, 2008
    #5
  6. hankwilliams Guest

    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.
    hankwilliams, Sep 2, 2008
    #6
  7. dj_nme Guest

    Hank Williams redux.

    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.
    dj_nme, Sep 2, 2008
    #7
  8. hankwilliams Guest

    Re: Hank Williams redux.

    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//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.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.
    hankwilliams, Sep 2, 2008
    #8
  9. hankwilliams Guest

    Re: Hank Williams redux.

    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//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.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.
    hankwilliams, Sep 2, 2008
    #9
  10. hankwilliams Guest

    Re: Hank Williams redux.

    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.
    hankwilliams, Sep 2, 2008
    #10
  11. dj_nme Guest

    back to Mu4/3

    So, what form do believe that the first Mu4/3 cameras will have?
    When do you think they'll the first ones will be released into the
    marketplace?

    My bet is that it really depends on what sort of photog Olympus is
    actually trying to woo into the new system.
    If they're trying for a mass-market approach, then the lowest system
    cost will be foremost and it'll be something like a smallish P&S with a
    big LCD screen on the back, no EVF and a slowish 3x or 4x zoom lens with
    other lenses on offer, but not quite yet available.
    On the other hand, if it's a more serious photog they're after then it
    will be more similar to the current FourThirds system DSLR cameras and
    have a good (high resolution) EVF and use a shortened/compact version of
    one of their current kit zoom lenses and have other lenses ready to go
    at the same time.

    Considering the recent Samsung announcement, Olympus had better be
    faster in development than with the original FourThirds.
    In less than 2 years Mu4/3 may be "dead in the water" if Samsung beats
    them to market.
    Either system will seem interesting at least until the first test
    results from the various review websites are put up on the web and then
    we can start with the "I told so".
    dj_nme, Sep 3, 2008
    #11
  12. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember "Richard" <>
    saying something like:

    >Awww, you've just insulted every senile, dottering old photo-taking,
    >film-demise lamenting bastard out there!
    >"Please! (drool) don't change our DSLR's!!!"


    Has anybody ever told you you're a fucking arsehole?
    No?
    I'm surprised.
    --

    Dave
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Sep 3, 2008
    #12
  13. dj_nme Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > dj_nme wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Are you kidding? Leaf shutters are magnificent and induce much less
    > vibration than a mechanical shutter while allowing true sync speeds up
    > to the leaf shutter speed (1/500 typically and 1/1000 in a few lenses)


    Where did I write "dark ages" = bad?
    Leaf shutter lenses have been around since virtually the beginning of
    photography in the 19th century, since before the focal plane shutter
    was even invented.
    They aren't a high-tech recent innovation.

    >> 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.

    >
    > Ahem. So called high speed sync is good for some situations such as
    > outdoor and trying to use flash with a wide aperture. But the fact is
    > that as the shutter speed goes up, the amount of available flash power
    > goes down. And drastically. For example my 56 meter GN flash becomes a
    > 3 meter GN flash at 1/12,000 (Maxxum 9). In high speed sync, a lot of
    > flash energy is wasted: a) because the strobe starts pulsing before the
    > shutter starts opening and b) because as the shutter speed increases,
    > more and more of the flash energy is wasted on a partially close shutter.


    If ambient light is enough to wash-out the effects of your high speed
    sync flash, then I would humbly suggest that a flash isn't required in
    the first place in that situation.
    Just rely on the fast shutter speed to freeze the action.

    > In the end, for high speed phtography, what is needed is a _brief_ flash
    > of light on the subject while the shutter is wide open. Hence, 1/10,000
    > can be achieved with a 1/200 (or 1/60 for that matter) shutter speed)
    >
    > By the way, "later" ? I had Minolta high speed sync flashes in 1994 and
    > they were not "new".


    This was with the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum series of SLR cameras, wasn't it?
    To me, that is one of the "later" SLR camera systems.

    >> 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.

    >
    > That's easy: a noise bounded system with limited future growth.


    That really depends on whether Olympus puts Mu4/3 cameras out as a "high
    end" or a "low end" system.
    If it's high-end, then I'd expect development money to go into both
    better sensor and processing technology to prevent and/or fix up the
    noise problem.
    If it's low-end, then I'd expect (at least the first) Mu4/3 cameras to
    essentially have a rehash of the shutter and sensor used in their recent
    "live view" FourThirds cameras, with all the problems they currently have.
    dj_nme, Sep 4, 2008
    #13
  14. hankwilliams Guest

    On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:27:21 +1000, dj_nme <> wrote:

    >If ambient light is enough to wash-out the effects of your high speed
    >sync flash, then I would humbly suggest that a flash isn't required in
    >the first place in that situation.
    >Just rely on the fast shutter speed to freeze the action.


    Sigh. You really don't know much about photography at all, do you. Why do you
    bother typing replies that only reveal the depths of your photographic naiveté
    and ignorance?

    Some people.

    Do everyone, and yourself, a huge favor. Get several styles of REAL cameras,
    several types of REAL flash units, then go out into the REAL world and use them
    on myriad REAL subjects for at least 6 months. Harsh sunlit portraiture,
    high-speed subjects in all manner of lighting, done with and without flash, etc.
    You'll finally come to realize why you REALLY don't know what you've been
    talking about this whole time, and why everyone else is (or should be) doing
    nothing but laughing at you.
    hankwilliams, Sep 4, 2008
    #14
  15. Peter Irwin Guest

    dj_nme <> wrote:
    >
    > Where did I write "dark ages" = bad?
    > Leaf shutter lenses have been around since virtually the beginning of
    > photography in the 19th century, since before the focal plane shutter
    > was even invented.
    > They aren't a high-tech recent innovation.
    >

    Actually the I think the focal plane shutter (Farmer 1882)
    is a little older than the between lens leaf shutter
    (Beauchamp, Dallmeyer 1887).

    Peter.
    --
    Peter Irwin, Sep 4, 2008
    #15
  16. dj_nme Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <48bbe621$0$7635$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    > 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
    >
    >> I suspect that if Mu4/3 takes off to any extent that Olympus and
    >> Panasonic may just let the full-sized FourThirds fade away.

    >
    > The sensor size is the same for both.


    Undeniably so.
    Except: Mu4/3 will do away with most of the optical and mechanical
    elements in the viewfinder, should thus be cheaper to make and hence be
    more profitable for Oly and Pana.
    That would make it more likely (IMHO) that the more mechanically
    complicated and thus more expensive to manufacture FourThirds DSLR
    cameras to be put on the back-burner.
    dj_nme, Sep 4, 2008
    #16
    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. philo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    480
    philo
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Jess Guim

    Come One, Come All

    Jess Guim, Dec 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
    Jess Guim
    Dec 2, 2003
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    398
    DVD Verdict
    May 24, 2006
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR vs. Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    806
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    589
    John Turco
    Mar 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page