Four-thirds?

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

  1. The "crop factor" refers to 35mm. If you compare the E1 to 35mm, the
    crop factor is 2x.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 16, 2004
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles Schuler

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I meant, with a camera like the D70 or 10D for instance, there is unused
    glass, because the lens could be smaller. With the E1 there is no unused
    glass.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 16, 2004
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Why try to make this black-and-white? In the rhetorical sense, I
    mean.

    He cited a number of Olympus lenses whose aperture is better for their
    angle-of-view than anything available in 35mm. (I think comparing
    apertures of lenses with similar angle of view is the most informative
    way to look at this issue.) That's a clear win for the 4/3 lens line.

    There are other statistics that could be cited that are NOT as
    favorable. The line seems to be short on ultra-fast lenses in the
    middle and short focal length range -- the 50mm f1.0 type of thing
    (would that be 25mm for the same angle of view in 4/3? not sure what
    the crop factor is).

    Seems to me a fair analysis is that the current Olympus 4/3 line wins
    for fastest in some angle-of-view ranges and lags behind in others.
    (And the ones it lags behind in are the ones I personally use most.)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 16, 2004
    #63
  4. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix 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 ... :)[/QUOTE]

    Is it true that they sharpen their teeth nightly? :}

    I used to be one of that crowd, btw. That was after I put away the view
    camera gear.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 16, 2004
    #64
  5. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Steve Hix
    I disagree, it's still a 300 mm lens. It's comparable in field-of-view to the
    600 but only because the sensor area is half sized, but it's still a 300 mm
    lens and you can compare it to the Canon 300.
    Did you own a 300 mm for your view camera? If you had a 4x5 then did you call
    your 300 a 100 mm because that's roughly the equivalent f-o-v for 35 mm? I
    really doubt it.

    Did you own a 300 mm for your MF? I have one now for my 645 system and it has
    a f-o-v equiv to roughly a 180 mm in 35 mm format, but I'd never call it a 180
    mm lens, it's still a 300.

    Same deal with the 300 f/2.8 Oly, it's just covering a much smaller image area
    so the magnification looks greater, but if you cropped the same area from 4x5
    or MF or 35 mm film it would just be a crop, and you wouldn't describe it as
    coming from a 600 mm lens.

    The two things that are odd about this 300 f/2.8 Oly lens are the cost and
    weight. Since it has less coverage than the 300 f/2.8 L Canon it's strange
    that it's a pound heavier (and lacks IS, which adds weight), especially in a
    system touting light weight.

    The other killer is the price, almost $7,000 at B&H. Add a body for $1,500 and
    compare to Canon's line, assuming you are after a long lens for sports and
    wildlife (and the tiny sensor is not an issue). For $8,500 you can buy the 1D
    Mark II and the 300 f/2.8 L IS and most of a tele-converter. You have faster
    AF, faster frame rate, 8 Mpix instead of 5, 1.3x crop instead of 2x and a heavy
    duty pro body. Great system, much better than the 4/3.

    Or if you want a longer lens get the 500 f/4 L IS ($5,300) and a 10D ($1,300)
    and you still have $1,900 left over. If you want to describe the lens in your
    idiom it's now an 800 mm f/4 due to the crop factor, with IS :) The 4/3 system
    just doesn't make sense.
    But with half the area.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 17, 2004
    #65
  6. Charles Schuler

    Justin Thyme Guest

    While at the moment the Olympus lenses are focus by wire - it's possible
    that when other companies start doing lenses for it that they may include
    mechanical focussing. One cool thing about fly-by-wire - the E1 lets you
    select which way the focus rings turns, so if you have another camera that
    you turn clockwise to go toward infinity, you can set the E1 to be the same.
    Personally, i'd still prefer mechanical, but i award points for ingenuity
    and effort.

    The 4/3 system has been designed with some pretty cool functions in mind,
    not all of which are currently implemented - firmware in the lens for
    example. Theoretically the lens is capable of telling the camera about
    distortions or vignetting that it has, and the camera can correct for it. It
    means that ultimately when the format does become more popular, we could
    start seeing budget bodies with budget glass that can compensate for it's
    errors, so even people on limited budgets will be able to take nice photos.
     
    Justin Thyme, Jul 17, 2004
    #66
  7. Nowhere to be seen in the 4/3 world. Like TSE lenses. Like fast primes.
    Wrong. It's competing with a 375mm f/4.0 lens. Why f/4.0? Because the E-1 is
    a full stop noisier than the 10D, so the 10D gets the same image quality
    with and f/4.0 lens that the E-1 gets with an f/2.8 lens.

    And an f/4.0 400mm lens is a _lot_ lighter and cheaper than a 300/2.8 lens.
    And you've forgotten that Canon has better image quality in it's 1.6x camera
    than Oly has in their 2x camera.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 17, 2004
    #67
  8. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    That would be it. Crop factor (which doesn't exactly work here, since
    the lenses aren't designed for a 35mm-size format) is roughly 1.94,
    usually rounded off to 2.
    They have published a roadmap for upcoming lenses. Other than a pair of
    macro lenses (25mm and 90mm) and a 14mm (28mm equiv) WA, they all appear
    to be zooms, ranging from 14-42mm (28-85 equiv.) to 125-250mm (250-500mm
    equiv). Apertures, so far, haven't been published, at least I haven't
    found anything more than some guesses. That's ignoring Sigma's 4/3
    lenses, which haven't shipped yet, AFAIK.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #68
  9. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    I disagree, it's still a 300 mm lens.[/QUOTE]

    It is. But in use, the two are not comparable. They are intended for two
    different formats.
    Which puts them into two different use ranges.
    Not realistically in terms of how they will be used.
    Of course not. And I'm not *doing* the equivalent here.

    The Oly 300mm lens is 300mm...but you do not get the same effect when
    using it as you would a 300mm lens on a Canon EOS 1Ds. To get the same
    effect on the Canon, you would have to go to a 600mm lens.

    Surely you can understand this?
    Good, because the very thought would never have occurred to me.

    It should be clear to you that attempting to equate a 300mm 4/3-format
    lens with a 300mm 35mm lens is just silly. They're not used for the same
    job, no more than 210mm lens on a 4x5 camera is used for the same tasks
    as a 200mm lens on a 6x6 or 200mm lens on a 35mm camera.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #69
  10. Charles Schuler

    Steve Hix Guest

    Almost certainly why they chose to go with fly-by-wire.
    It seems to work pretty well for Canon; their USM lenses have a solid
    track record.
     
    Steve Hix, Jul 17, 2004
    #70
  11. Charles Schuler

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Steve Hix
    It's also clear to me that equating a 300 mm f/2.8 4/3 lens to a 600 mm f/2.8
    35mm system lens is equally or even more silly :)

    I think we've beat this one to death at any rate.

    If 4/3 can sell enough bodies to keep people interested in making more lenses
    then it's a nice small sensor system, but to those of us with plenty of quality
    35 mm glass it's a moot point.

    I finally saw some dSLR sales figures for 2003 and 2004 ...

    Canon says they sold 580,000 dSLR's in 2003 and have a "goal" of 1.4 million
    dSLR's this year.

    Nikon says they sold 300,000 dSLR's in 2003 and "plan" on selling 1 million in
    2004, so they actually have a higher growth rate than Canon.

    Olympus didn't say how many units they sold in 2003 but mention a new
    "affordable SLR camera in the fall of 2004" and "expects total sales" of
    150,000 dSLR's in fiscal 2004, presumably boosted by this new cheaper model.
    Whether this is enough to keep the other partners involved with new designs is
    a good question, though looking at the partner roster it appears they have few
    other options if they want to keep a finger in the dSLR market.

    http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/wcs/leaf/CID/onair/asabt/resch/314791

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 17, 2004
    #71
  12. EF USM lenses don't focus by wire. The focus ring is still mechanically
    linked to the focusing element.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
    #72
  13. Of course, you could just use a higher megapixel camera and crop the
    field of view a little. The 300/2.8 is NOT a 600/2.8. It's a 300/2.8
    with a cropped field of view. You can do that with any lens, and seeing
    as the 300/2.8 Oly has is twice as much (and heavier) than a spectacular
    Canon lens, you're going to have a hard time convincing me of the
    advantage of 4/3.

    Of course, Canon or Nikon could always build a camera using their
    existing mounts but with a smaller sensor to get the same results as
    4/3. Of course, they aren't doing this because it's probably going to
    be easier to build larger, high-quality sensors for a reasonable price
    than it will be to make super-wide zooms of sufficient quality for small
    sensors.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
    #73
  14. You've heard of this crazy thing called cropping, haven't you?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
    #74
  15. Except at the top, bottom and sides because the sensor isn't round.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
    #75
  16. No, for the same effect you'd just crop. The 1Ds has megapixels to
    spare. The only 4/3 camera in existence does not.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 17, 2004
    #76
  17. This is incorrect. The size of the lens determines the f stop, not the angle
    of coverage of the lens. There's no "unused glass".

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 17, 2004
    #77
  18. That's a pretty odd comment. All of the glass is used on all DSLRs,
    no matter what the "crop factor" of the sensor. With most lenses, all
    of the glass area contributes illumination to the centre of the image as
    well as the edges. If you don't use the full image circle, the amount
    of each lens element participating doesn't change significantly.

    Now, lenses for the 4/3 system still ought to be lighter, but it's
    because the smaller sensor allows the use of a shorter focal length
    with the same angular coverage, so the lens can be designed with smaller
    elements and keep the same f/number.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jul 17, 2004
    #78
  19. Charles Schuler

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    You mean, "unused light in the focal plane", don't you?
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 17, 2004
    #79
  20. Charles Schuler

    Skip M Guest

    Well, the 300 f2.8's performance is more due to the sensor size than
    anything special about the lens, the Canon 300 f2.8 works like a 480mm lens
    on the 10D, the 400 f2.8 like a 640mm, and it's price is comparable to the
    Oly, too.
    As far as size of sensor goes, if the sensor isn't what is limiting the size
    of the camera, and the mirror isn't, either, we're back to square one, if
    the advantage of 4/3 is supposed to be a decrease in size, (of the body, not
    just the lens) but the size is defined by the mount, then what the heck was
    the point? I'm really just trying to understand, not argue, even if it
    seems that way. Canon dumped the FD mount because, I've heard, the mount
    was too small to use with AF and the large focal length lenses, so their
    cameras are limited by mount size, too? So there's no point in Canon going
    to the 4/3 route, since there'd be no advantage to them, their camera bodies
    are already about as small as they can be? (Just a fer instance...)
     
    Skip M, Jul 17, 2004
    #80
    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.