Leica; "4/3rds quality just not there."

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 24, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest


    Steve Huff met Sefan Daniel and Steffen Keil from Leica on a party

    “What Stefan did tell me was that I could SQUASH any rumor of a Leica
    mirrorless m4/3 camera. He pointed to the M9 and said “We already have
    a mirrorless camera”. He also told me that M4/3 is NOT in the future
    for Leica as the quality is just not there.”
    RichA, May 24, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bob G Guest

    How about a full-frame four thirds from Olympus or Panasonic?

    Full-frame four thirds: 24mm x 32mm
    Bob G, May 24, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Guest Guest

    4/3rs can never be full frame. it's maximum size is what it is. it can
    never be any bigger.
    Guest, May 24, 2010
  4. RichA

    Bob G Guest

    4/3 is an artihmetic ratio - unless it's been registered as a
    proprietary name (which I doubt), it can be applied to any rectangular-
    shaped object that satisfies it.
    Bob G, May 24, 2010
  5. RichA

    Guest Guest

    4/3rds has been registered and it's based on the *size* of the sensor,
    not (just) it's aspect ratio.

    full frame means a 24x36mm frame, the standard 35mm film frame, and
    it's a term that began 50 years ago when olympus came out with a
    half-frame 35mm film camera.
    Guest, May 24, 2010
  6. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    So what rock have you been living under for the past ten years that you
    are unaware of the multiple-vendor 4/3 standard that allows bodies and
    lenses from Panasonic, Leica, and Olympus to be interchanged freely?
    J. Clarke, May 24, 2010
  7. RichA

    Bob G Guest

    I can't see "4/3" being registered by anyone, "Four Thirds" maybe. And
    4/3 is not a size, merely a ratio.
    The size of the "4/3" sensor is approx. 18mm x 13.5mm, not 1.333...

    And why not call it the "Three Fourths" (3/4) sensor, anyway? It's the
    same thing, isn't it?

    But I think we're fighting over names and not concepts. By a "full-
    frame" 4/3 sensor I meant a larger sensor 24x32mm2, its sides in the
    proportion 3:4, that's all.
    Bob G, May 24, 2010
  8. RichA

    Guest Guest

    4/3 is shorthand or an abbreviation for four thirds, just as m43 or mft
    is shorthand for micro four thirds.
    it's a size.
    the entire sensor is 4/3 of an inch, although the actual light
    sensitive area is smaller.


    Four Thirds is a reference to the size of the image sensor. The image
    sensor for Four Thirds cameras is what is commonly referred to as a
    4/3 type or 4/3 type sensor.
    no. 3/4 is less than 4/3.
    full frame means 24 x 36 mm. 4/3 can never be that big.
    Guest, May 24, 2010
  9. You mean SINGLE frame, don't you? (Based on 35mm motion picture film.)

    Fred McKenzie, May 25, 2010
  10. RichA

    Guest Guest

    initially it was single and double frame, 18x24 and 24x36, but few
    cameras used 18x24mm. 24x36 was pretty much the standard size.

    then olympus came out with the pen camera and called it half-frame, so
    24x36mm became known as full frame. that was 50 years ago and the term
    has stuck since then.
    Guest, May 25, 2010
  11. RichA

    bart.c Guest

    4/3 could never use a 27 x 36 mm sensor?
    bart.c, May 25, 2010
  12. RichA

    Me Guest

    Given that Leica managed to make an outrageously expensive 35mm format
    camera (M9) that for sensor performance managed to score below the 4
    years older Canon 5d, and several aps-c dslrs costing less than $1k, on
    DXOMark tests - he's probably right. A 4/3 camera made by Leica would
    probably suck.
    Me, May 25, 2010
  13. RichA

    nate bishop Guest

    Because the diagonal is not four 1/3rds (1.33) inches. The diagonal of
    those dimension is 1.77 inches.
    nate bishop, May 25, 2010
  14. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Four Thirds was much more than just an arithmetic ratio.

    The Four Thirds in the DSLR camera system referred not only to the
    aspect ratio of the sensor but also the size of the die used to make
    the sensor. Some critical dimension of the die (I don't know which)
    was expressed as Four Thirds of an inch.
    Bruce, May 25, 2010
  15. RichA

    Bob G Guest

    Because the image area would then be covering the sprocket holes.
    Bob G, May 25, 2010
  16. RichA

    Guest Guest

    perhaps you should take your own advice.


    Sensors are often referred to with a "type" designation using imperial
    fractions such as 1/1.8" or 2/3" which are larger than the actual
    sensor diameters. The type designation harks back to a set of standard
    sizes given to TV camera tubes in the 50's. These sizes were typically
    1/2", 2/3" etc. The size designation does not define the diagonal of
    the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass
    envelope of the tube. Engineers soon discovered that for various
    reasons the usable area of this imaging plane was approximately two
    thirds of the designated size. This designation has clearly stuck
    (although it should have been thrown out long ago). There appears to be
    no specific mathematical relationship between the diameter of the
    imaging circle and the sensor size, although it is always roughly two
    Guest, May 25, 2010
  17. RichA

    Bob G Guest

    The diagonal of a rectangle of sides a and b is given by this

    diagonal = square root of (a squared + b squared)

    There's an infinite number of solutions for a and b for any given
    diagonal. The solution becomes unique only when you specify a
    relationship between a and b, such as

    a:b :: 3:4, or 2:3, or 1:1, or...

    So, it is not true that a diagonal, alone by itself defines the size
    of the sensor. You must also give the aspect ratio.
    Bob G, May 25, 2010
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    That's a surprising statement from someone who actively promotes a
    Four Thirds discussion group.

    From the outset, Four Thirds referred not only to the aspect ratio,
    but also to the nominal size of a key factor in manufacturing the
    sensors. Whether it was the blank, or a die, or something else I
    cannot recall. But it was used to define the sensor size as well as
    the aspect ratio.
    Bruce, May 25, 2010
  19. RichA

    SMS Guest

    Yeah, way too late for that.

    Micro 4/3 may gain some traction as an upgrade from P&S, but of course
    it can't compete against D-SLRs any more than 4/3 could compete against
    D-SLRs with larger sensors. OTOH the Sony NEX series has some big
    advantages over Micro 4/3, and with the limited industry support for
    Micro 4/3 will be, practically speaking, as much as a standard as Micro
    4/3. What's good about the E-mount is that it will be used on other Sony
    devices like camcorders.

    Sony is also introducing wide-angle and fish-eye converters for some of
    their lenses. Hopefully the quality will be better than the abysmal
    quality of wide-angle and telephoto converters used for P&S cameras.
    SMS, May 25, 2010
  20. RichA

    Me Guest

    What are the dimensions of a sensor for it to not be "terminally noise
    Me, May 26, 2010
    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.