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

http://43rumors.com/category/rumor/

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

“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.”

 

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

Full-frame four thirds: 24mm x 32mm

 

4/3rs can never be full frame. it's maximum size is what it is. it can
never be any bigger.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

<http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7045.htm>

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.

 

You mean SINGLE frame, don't you? (Based on 35mm motion picture film.)

Fred

 

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.

 

4/3 could never use a 27 x 36 mm sensor?

 

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.

 

Because the diagonal is not four 1/3rds (1.33) inches. The diagonal of
those dimension is 1.77 inches.

 

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.

 

Because the image area would then be covering the sprocket holes.

 

perhaps you should take your own advice.

<http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.
htm>

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
thirds.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

What are the dimensions of a sensor for it to not be "terminally noise
bound"?