Olympus obituary? Good article

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Sep 12, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Sep 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 12/09/2010 1:23 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points. The
    > starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    > 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.
    >
    > http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539&Itemid=1
    >

    Everything else isn't headed to 35mm sensor sizes.
    If anything , for slrs, there's been a huge rush from 35mm film format
    to APS-c digital format, and 35mm digital format languishes with sales
    volume even well below 4/3 (if u4/3 is included, though they are not slrs)
    There are advantages to smaller formats. As the P&S troll reminds us in
    every thread, you're not going to get <28 to >300mm in a larger format
    with camera which fits in your pocket.
     
    Me, Sep 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 9/11/2010 6:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    > Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points. The
    > starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    > 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.
    >
    > http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539&Itemid=1


    I thought it amusing that the article claims that 4:3 users are
    screaming for higher megapixel sensors. They should be doing the opposite.
     
    SMS, Sep 12, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Re: Olympus obituary? Good article

    On Sep 12, 1:28 am, SMS <> wrote:
    > On 9/11/2010 6:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points.  The
    > > starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    > > 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.

    >
    > >http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539...

    >
    > I thought it amusing that the article claims that 4:3 users are
    > screaming for higher megapixel sensors. They should be doing the opposite..


    4/3rds starts to show noise at 200 ISO and shadows at 100 ISO show
    noise so if you are doing anything of value, you have to stick to
    those ISOs at a maximum. Going to 18 megapixels IMO, would be a
    disaster. However, if they could bring out a modular camera, with say
    8 megapixels for low noise and 20 megaxpixels with a native ISO of 50 :
    (for high resolution daylight work), they might have a good
    combination.
     
    Rich, Sep 12, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points. The
    >starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    >4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.
    >
    >http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539&Itemid=1



    It is actually a very poor article because it is fixated on full frame
    being the future digital format of choice. Yet all the evidence
    indicates that APS-C will be the format of choice.

    Pentax is showing no signs of moving to full frame and no longer has a
    range of lenses that will cover full frame.

    Sony has recently added the mirrorless NEX and pellicle SLT models and
    they all have APS-C sensors. Sales of the full frame A900 and A850
    have been dismal. There are still many unsold A900s on the shelves
    despite none having been manufactured for over two years. The cheaper
    A850 has been a sales flop too. Currently, no Sony full frame DSLRs
    are being manufactured. Many observers believe that Sony will never
    make any more, and merely sell of the existing stock of A900s and
    850s.

    Although Canon has had a particularly strong showing in full frame,
    its DSLR line-up has only two full frame models using the same sensor
    and one APS-H model. Everything else is APS-C.

    The Canon EOS 7D startled many by using an 18 MP APS-C sensor and is
    selling very strongly. Canon's APS-C models outsell Canon's full
    frame models many times over.

    Nikon's APS-C DSLRs also outsell the full frame D700, D3S and D3X but
    here the picture is less clear because the D700 is such a strong
    seller, based on superlative image quality and very low noise. Nikon
    is certain to stay with full frame and invest in it, but its APS-C
    cameras are still the biggest sellers.

    So, to sum up, there is *no sign* of the future being irrevocably tied
    to full frame sensors, and the article you linked to is misguided at
    best. I'm not surprised you liked it, though.
     
    Bruce, Sep 12, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    peter Guest

    Re: Olympus obituary? Good article

    On 9/12/2010 2:33 AM, Rich wrote:
    > On Sep 12, 1:28 am, SMS<> wrote:
    >> On 9/11/2010 6:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points. The
    >>> starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    >>> 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.

    >>
    >>> http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539...

    >>
    >> I thought it amusing that the article claims that 4:3 users are
    >> screaming for higher megapixel sensors. They should be doing the opposite.

    >
    > 4/3rds starts to show noise at 200 ISO and shadows at 100 ISO show
    > noise so if you are doing anything of value, you have to stick to
    > those ISOs at a maximum. Going to 18 megapixels IMO, would be a
    > disaster. However, if they could bring out a modular camera, with say
    > 8 megapixels for low noise and 20 megaxpixels with a native ISO of 50 :
    > (for high resolution daylight work), they might have a good
    > combination.




    But then you would complain about the price.

    BTW why not just use a decent sensor

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Sep 12, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:23:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >: Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points. The
    >: starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    >: 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.
    >:
    >: http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539&Itemid=1
    >
    >Evidently that guy gets paid by the word.



    I liked the way he said "There is nothing definite about what I will
    say concerning the E-5. I don’t intend to add on to the rumour mill.
    As it is, it’s doing very well without my involvement."

    Then he spent the next *three pages* adding to the rumour mill!
     
    Bruce, Sep 12, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 9/12/2010 12:57 AM, Bruce wrote:

    <snip>

    > So, to sum up, there is *no sign* of the future being irrevocably tied
    > to full frame sensors, and the article you linked to is misguided at
    > best. I'm not surprised you liked it, though.


    Still, Olympus must have an inexhaustible supply of cash from its other
    businesses to be able to continue subsidizing the losses from its camera
    business. How long are they going to continue with the 4:3 fiasco?
     
    SMS, Sep 12, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Olympus obituary? Good article

    On Sep 12, 9:09 am, peter <> wrote:
    > On 9/12/2010 2:33 AM, Rich wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 12, 1:28 am, SMS<>  wrote:
    > >> On 9/11/2010 6:23 PM, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>> Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points.  The
    > >>> starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    > >>> 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.

    >
    > >>>http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539...

    >
    > >> I thought it amusing that the article claims that 4:3 users are
    > >> screaming for higher megapixel sensors. They should be doing the opposite.

    >
    > > 4/3rds starts to show noise at 200 ISO and shadows at 100 ISO show
    > > noise so if you are doing anything of value, you have to stick to
    > > those ISOs at a maximum.  Going to 18 megapixels IMO, would be a
    > > disaster.  However, if they could bring out a modular camera, with say
    > > 8 megapixels for low noise and 20 megaxpixels with a native ISO of 50 :
    > > (for high resolution daylight work), they might have a good
    > > combination.

    >
    > But then you would complain about the price.
    >
    > BTW why not just use a decent sensor
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    I wanted to confine it to the realm of possibility for Olympus. It's
    pretty easy for a user to jump to another brand and a larger sensor.
    For them, it would be hugely costly as they would have to make all new
    lenses too.
     
    RichA, Sep 12, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    peter Guest

    Re: Olympus obituary? Good article

    On 9/12/2010 1:45 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Sep 12, 9:09 am, peter<> wrote:
    >> On 9/12/2010 2:33 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Sep 12, 1:28 am, SMS<> wrote:
    >>>> On 9/11/2010 6:23 PM, RichA wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points. The
    >>>>> starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    >>>>> 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.

    >>
    >>>>> http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539...

    >>
    >>>> I thought it amusing that the article claims that 4:3 users are
    >>>> screaming for higher megapixel sensors. They should be doing the opposite.

    >>
    >>> 4/3rds starts to show noise at 200 ISO and shadows at 100 ISO show
    >>> noise so if you are doing anything of value, you have to stick to
    >>> those ISOs at a maximum. Going to 18 megapixels IMO, would be a
    >>> disaster. However, if they could bring out a modular camera, with say
    >>> 8 megapixels for low noise and 20 megaxpixels with a native ISO of 50 :
    >>> (for high resolution daylight work), they might have a good
    >>> combination.

    >>
    >> But then you would complain about the price.
    >>
    >> BTW why not just use a decent sensor
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > I wanted to confine it to the realm of possibility for Olympus. It's
    > pretty easy for a user to jump to another brand and a larger sensor.
    > For them, it would be hugely costly as they would have to make all new
    > lenses too.
    >


    There are times in business when you just walk away from a bad decision.
    Why throw good money after bad. I have not done a cost analysis of the
    alternatives, have you? More importantly, I wonder if Olympus has. Don't
    answer too quickly, I've seen major companies do a totally inadequately
    cost analysis.



    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Sep 12, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Re: Olympus obituary? Good article

    On Sep 12, 2:12 pm, peter <> wrote:
    > On 9/12/2010 1:45 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 12, 9:09 am, peter<>  wrote:
    > >> On 9/12/2010 2:33 AM, Rich wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Sep 12, 1:28 am, SMS<>    wrote:
    > >>>> On 9/11/2010 6:23 PM, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points.  The
    > >>>>> starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
    > >>>>> 4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes..

    >
    > >>>>>http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=539...

    >
    > >>>> I thought it amusing that the article claims that 4:3 users are
    > >>>> screaming for higher megapixel sensors. They should be doing the opposite.

    >
    > >>> 4/3rds starts to show noise at 200 ISO and shadows at 100 ISO show
    > >>> noise so if you are doing anything of value, you have to stick to
    > >>> those ISOs at a maximum.  Going to 18 megapixels IMO, would be a
    > >>> disaster.  However, if they could bring out a modular camera, with say
    > >>> 8 megapixels for low noise and 20 megaxpixels with a native ISO of 50 :
    > >>> (for high resolution daylight work), they might have a good
    > >>> combination.

    >
    > >> But then you would complain about the price.

    >
    > >> BTW why not just use a decent sensor

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Peter

    >
    > > I wanted to confine it to the realm of possibility for Olympus.  It's
    > > pretty easy for a user to jump to another brand and a larger sensor.
    > > For them, it would be hugely costly as they would have to make all new
    > > lenses too.

    >
    > There are times in business when you just walk away from a bad decision.
    > Why throw good money after bad. I have not done a cost analysis of the
    > alternatives, have you? More importantly, I wonder if Olympus has. Don't
    > answer too quickly, I've seen major companies do a totally inadequately
    > cost analysis.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Awhile back there was an article in Amateur Photographer magazine
    about this. The author suggested that camera companies know better
    what they should build than armchair designers. There is so much
    complexity involved in listening to people, weighing what they want
    against realistic design possibilities that I figure companies get it
    right more often than not. But I still like thinking about what might
    be interesting to have.
     
    Rich, Sep 13, 2010
    #11
  12. Me <> wrote:

    > If anything , for slrs, there's been a huge rush from 35mm film format
    > to APS-c digital format, and 35mm digital format languishes with sales
    > volume even well below 4/3 (if u4/3 is included, though they are not slrs)
    > There are advantages to smaller formats.


    The major one is that FF units tend to be expensive because
    - the sensor is expensive
    - fewer people buy them

    which causes of course fewer people to buy them.

    A secondary one is that long reach can be fun and the crop
    factor helps turning FF lenses into even longer ones.

    > As the P&S troll reminds us in
    > every thread, you're not going to get <28 to >300mm in a larger format
    > with camera which fits in your pocket.


    Sheesh, you need bigger pockets.

    For some P&S cameras out there you'd just take a fixed focus wide
    angle FF system (and they can be pretty small, as anyone who used
    a 35mm film based version knows) and crop to 300+ mm and still
    get better results. :)

    And no, you won't get a 300mm P&S into your pocket either,
    because that's at best a 50 or 60mm lens. :->

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2010
    #12
  13. Crash! <> wrote:

    > Wikipedia:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system


    > Advantages


    > * The smaller sensor size makes possible smaller and lighter
    > camera bodies and lenses. In particular, the Four-Thirds system
    > allows for the development of impressive f/2.0 zoom lenses, which
    > would be prohibitively heavy, expensive, and difficult to design
    > for larger sensor formats.


    Whereas a moderate f/4 zoom does the same thing for 35mm.
    Same DOF, and since 35mm can raise their ISO by 2 stops, given
    the same sensor technology, same light gathering capability.

    Unfortunately, there are impressive f/2.8 zooms for 35mm,
    which means that 4/3rds would need f/1.4 zooms to compete.


    > * Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the
    > sensor is traveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in
    > brighter corners, and most importantly improved off-center
    > resolution, particularly on wide angle lenses.


    Nice marketing claim. Ever hear of retrofocus? Same thing,
    used by every 35mm wide angle lens.

    > * Because the flange focal distance is significantly shorter
    > than most mounts (such as Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon F and Pentax
    > K), lenses for many other SLR types, including the old Olympus OM
    > System, can be fitted to Four Thirds cameras with simple
    > mechanical adapter rings. (Such mechanical adapter rings
    > typically require manual setting of focus and aperture). In many
    > cases this produces excellent results, especially with longer
    > focal-length lenses and lenses at smaller apertures. A series of
    > tests by John Foster (Using OM legacy lenses on E1 body) provides
    > a demonstration.


    Mechanical adapters ... yes. Nice theory. Unfortunately,
    many lenses nowadays set their aperture and close their
    aperture with electronic signals.

    > * A smaller sensor makes it easier to achieve a deeper
    > depth-of-field, when needed, reducing the risk of photos that are
    > out of focus.


    A larger sensor just needs to stop down more, the lost light
    is exactly counterbalanced by it's larger size.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 15, 2010
    #13
    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. gangle

    Obituary

    gangle, Apr 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,159
    Blinky the Shark
    Apr 3, 2005
  2. Robert Oliver

    Olympus D 490-Z won't turn on; common Olympus problem?

    Robert Oliver, Mar 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    12,424
    charmaine
    Feb 5, 2012
  3. Mark Roberts

    EDN: Good article on digital sensors and cameras

    Mark Roberts, Sep 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    289
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Andre Da Costa [Extended64]

    Article: Why 64-Bit Is Good For E12

    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jan 26, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Jan 26, 2006
  5. AnonGoo

    video - Obituary: Epson Stylus 600 Printer

    AnonGoo, May 20, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    391
Loading...

Share This Page