Four-thirds?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Charles Schuler, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. For the foreseeable future, they will need to approach 35mm frame size
    if they will overtake film quality and progress past it.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 16, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    Bouser Guest

    You're kidding! The lenses aren't mechanical ring control zooms? That, for
    me, is an absolute fatal flaw.
     
    Bouser, Jul 16, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles Schuler

    Bouser Guest

    Hence my original coment, that 4/3 is the APS of digital. I can't see it
    competing with Canon, Nikon, etc.
     
    Bouser, Jul 16, 2004
    #43
  4. Charles Schuler

    Bouser Guest

    "Focus." I read it too damned fast. Is it just the focus, or the zoom, as
    well?
     
    Bouser, Jul 16, 2004
    #44
  5. Sad, but true.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 16, 2004
    #45
  6. I'm pretty sure it's just the focus.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 16, 2004
    #46
  7. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Depends on how you look at it.

    The 150/f2 is smaller/lighter than any 300/f2 for 35mm I've ever seen.
    The 300/2.8 is smaller/lighter than any 600/2.8, etc.

    Comparing 4/3 dSLRs with the rest of the dSLR field isn't exactly an
    apples-to-apples relationship.
    No, *focus* is fly-by-wire. Zoom is mechanical.

    Canon's USM lenses' focus is fly-by-wire, btw.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #47
  8. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Just the focus, like EF USM lenses.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #48
  9. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Again, you conflate focus with zoom controls.

    You must be similarly down on Canon USM lenses, right?
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #49
  10. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    I can see why you thought the *ist is an improvement over the 7i, at least I
    could get my fingers on the buttons of the Pentax, and make them function,
    the Minolta 7 (not "i") that I tried, I couldn't even do that.
     
    Skip M, Jul 16, 2004
    #50
  11. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    True, but if the sensors diameter, for lack of a better word, takes up less
    space, then the circuitry that's packed around it should be able to fit in a
    smaller space. Maybe doing away with the mirror, or making it a pellicle
    mirror, would help, since there'd be no need for space for it, or at least
    for it to swing...
    But I thought, at the end of the day, the raison d' etre for the 4/3 format
    was to provide a smaller size? If not, why not soldier on with an APS sized
    sensor, design lenses for that format, and save R&D money for lens and
    sensor res development, rather than developing an entirely new sensor,
    format, lens line, marketing strategy, etc.
     
    Skip M, Jul 16, 2004
    #51
  12. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    The smaller/lighter/fast lenses are pretty compelling.
    You appear to be looking at it thru rose-colored glasses.
    There is no 600 f/2.8 so this is nonsense.

    Compare the Oly 300 f/2.8 to the Canon 300 f/2.8 L though since it's the same
    focal length (yeah, I know ... tiny sensor means the image is magnified ... get
    over it).

    Here are the specs from B&H's web site ...

    Oly 300 f/2.8 costs $6,999 and weighs 7 lbs.

    Canon f/2.8 L IS costs $3,799 grey market (extra $100 for US warranty) and
    weighs 6 lbs.

    So the Canon costs more than $3,000 less, weighs a pound less and offers Image
    Stabilization, something the 4/3 system doesn't have.

    Gee, such a great system ... I would have figured the lens would be lighter
    than the Canon lens since it covers a smaller area but I guess the lens
    designers aren't that smart.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2004
    #52
  13. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Steve Hix
    You were the one who said the Oly lenses were "faster", so quit trying to
    weasel dance out of it since you're clearly wrong.

    Just thumbing thru the lens list I see *seven* Canon lenses that are FASTER
    than ANY Oly lens, ranging from f/1.2 to f/1.8. Another three that are as fast
    as any Oly, at f/2. And 15 others that are f/2.8, as fast as all but one Oly
    lens. You lose.
    That's because Canon offers a wide range of lenses (I count 56 on the B&H ad)
    so they include slower cheaper lenses for consumer-level users. Note the
    prices on those and they are probably less than the Oly lenses ... the least
    expensive Oly lens is around $500 at B&H while many of the slow Canon lenses
    are less than half that.
    More nonsense. Oly 300 f/2.8 weighs 7 lbs and costs $7,000 while the superb
    Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS with near-perfect MTF charts weighs 6 lbs and sells for
    $3,800, and offers the benefit of Image Stabilization. You'd think the Oly
    lens designers could make theirs lighter since it covers such a small sensor
    area but I guess not :)
    So the Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS is a better choice than the Oly 300 f/2.8 then,
    since it's a pound lighter?

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2004
    #53
  14. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    In practice, it might be more correct to see the high-end Canon and
    Nikon kit as today's medium format, the 4/3 as an emerging 35mm, and the
    low end digital as APS.

    Things really have changed in the transistion from film to digital.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #54
  15. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Eventually, but not by as much as you might think. The circuitry uses
    current active/passive components, which set a lower limit (today) on
    how far you can reduce the physical size. Batteries in particular force
    some fairly stringent limits, given current electrical demands.
    Someone might try it. Again. On the other hand, it's not much of a
    problem, given the defined size of the 4/3 lens mount.
    It does. (Yes, the 300/2.8 is roughly the size of a 300/2.8 for 35mm
    systems...but its optical performance is comparable to a 600/2.8, in
    terms of angle of view.)
    Because they think they can do better than that. They may be right.

    Kodak has a pretty good handle on FFT-CCD and standard CCD sensors, and
    they seem to think there is pretty good growth potential in the
    technology.

    IIRC, Pentax is going with an APS-size sensor...

    Should be an interesting experiment to watch.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #55
  16. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    I think it would be a good idea for you to share these thoughts with the gentle
    folk on rec.photo.equipment.medium-format ... :)
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2004
    #56
  17. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    You appear to be looking at it thru rose-colored glasses.[/QUOTE]

    No, I'm trying to stand away from my 30+ year 35mm perspective. Maybe it
    helps that I shot view cameras and medium format before going to 35mm,
    maybe not.

    There is no perfect approach, all have their advantages and
    disadvantages. (Heck, dauguerrotypes can be really beautiful images, but
    the heated mercury kind of makes one stop and think.)
    If there were, just how much bigger would it be? (Have you never used
    figurative points for argument sake?)

    The E-1's 300mm lens is not comparable to Canon's 300mm, but to the
    600mm.
    Bad analogy; the 300 L-series is pretty light for the type.

    I'll concede that a 300mm lens for 4/3 is going to be about the same as
    a similar 300mm lens for 35mm.

    That said, the two would not be competing in the same space: a 50mm 4/3
    lens is a mild tele, a 50mm EF (or Nikon, etc.) lens is at the upper
    bound of wide angle.
    The advantages of 20+ years of system development, and having long ago
    covered the costs of EF system creation.
    The IS surely is a nice feature.

    But you (once again) miss the point:

    The E-1's 300/2.8 is *not* competing with Canon's 300/2.8, but with a
    600/2.8 lens (which doesn't currently, if ever, exist). Notice the
    slight difference in field of view between the two 300mm lenses.

    The closest equivalent of Canon's to the Olympus 300/2.8 is a 600/4-L
    IS, which lists for $12K, sells for $7K, and weighs just under 12lbs.
    It's about half the weight (and faster) than Canon's equivalent having
    the roughly the same field of view.

    You seem to keep losing sight of the fact that the Olympus lenses are
    not 35mm lenses, while Canon's are.
    Then again, I seriously doubt they are anywhere near as stupid as you
    seem to think. They, at least, understand that 200mm lenses for 4/3 are
    not similar in performance to 200mm lenses for 35mm systems.

    For example, I used to use a 210mm lens. It was not a telephoto.
    Of course, it was for a 5x7 view camera.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #57
  18. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    You were the one who said the Oly lenses were "faster", so quit trying to
    weasel dance out of it since you're clearly wrong.[/QUOTE]

    Where is the Canon 600/2.8 that matches Oly's 300/2.8. (Canon's got a
    600/4L.)

    Where is Canon's 100-400/2.8 to match the Olympus 50-200/2.8? (Canon's
    is a 100-400/4-5.6L)

    Heck, where is the Canon 5.6-11/2.8 lens to match Olympus' 11-22/2.8?
    Covered under "a couple of faster primes", I think.
    You're still not comparing like with like. The Olympus 300/2.8 is not in
    competition with the Canon 300/2.8, but with the Canon 600/4 (since
    there is no 600/2.8).

    Do you get it yet?
    Yay!!

    Canon's EF system has been out how long, exactly? How long has the E-1
    been out? If you take your argument further in this direction, Canon
    should never have introduced the EF/EOS product line. After all, Nikon
    had a full line of lenses and bodies, and many of the lenses were less
    expensive than the few initial EF lineup.

    Fortunately, Canon abandoned the FD product line (well, they did later,
    well after the EF line was up to speed), took out a blank sheet of
    paper, and started from scratch. You can bet it didn't look like a good
    idea, at the time, for a lot Canon owners.
    And cheaper lenses for 4/3 will show up, too. Things take time. Sigma
    has already announced some, more will come. Things take time.

    It's not like anyone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to
    throw out your current gear and buy everything new.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #58
  19. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The lenses are smaller, because there is no crop factor (no unused
    glass).
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 16, 2004
    #59
  20. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    So the Canon 300 f/2.8 L IS is a better choice than the Oly 300 f/2.8 then,
    since it's a pound lighter?[/QUOTE]

    They're not directly comparable, are they?

    The EF 300/2.8L (an excellent lens, nobody argues otherwise): field of
    view = 8.25º. (Better to compare the EF lens with the Olympus 150/2,
    which also has a field of view of 8.2º and weighs 2.2lbs less.)

    The Olympus 300/2.8: field of view = 4.2º, (and it's 5lbs lighter than
    the Canon 600/4L lens, whose field of view is 4.16º).
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.