| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2005 12:30:12 PM · #1 |
From the press release:
Olympus Corporation (Olympus) and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic) today announced the signing of a joint development agreement for interchangeable lens type digital SLR cameras based on the Four Thirds System standard. Under the terms of the agreement, the two companies will jointly develop technologies and devices, and promote the development of digital SLR cameras that maximize the extensive user benefits of the Four Thirds System. The aim of the agreement is to meet the needs of the rapidly growing global market for digital SLR cameras*1 by fusing Olympus's industry-leading SLR camera technology with Panasonic’s advanced digital AV technology, and by developing innovative new design concepts for next-generation digital SLR cameras. The agreement covers the following three main points:
1. The two firms agree to jointly develop technologies and devices related to SLR camera systems (including camera bodies, interchangeable lenses, and related system peripherals) based on the Four Thirds System standard.
2. The two firms will individually develop digital SLR system cameras and related system products that incorporate the abovementioned technologies and devices.
3. With the aim of promoting widespread adoption of the Four Thirds System standard, the two firms will encourage other firms to participate in, and develop products for, the Four Thirds System standard.
So, what do you think? Will we see Leica lenses with Panasonic OIS system for 4/3? Or Panasonic SLR's?
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 12:32:05 PM · #2 |
Let me start by saying I'm an idiot.
Then, let me ask...4/3 is the aspect ratio, right? If so, what other aspect ratios are the norm...
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 12:32:37 PM · #3 |
Fuji and Kodak were supposed to be partners in this new "standard" also. But haven't heard anything about that in over a year.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 12:33:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Let me start by saying I'm an idiot.
Then, let me ask...4/3 is the aspect ratio, right? If so, what other aspect ratios are the norm... |
1.5 : 1 just like your Rebel
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 12:51:05 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Let me start by saying I'm an idiot.
Then, let me ask...4/3 is the aspect ratio, right? If so, what other aspect ratios are the norm... |
No, the 'standard' is basically the mount, sensor size and the distance between.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 01:13:04 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Let me start by saying I'm an idiot.
Then, let me ask...4/3 is the aspect ratio, right? If so, what other aspect ratios are the norm... |
No, the 'standard' is basically the mount, sensor size and the distance between. |
Okay, so the agreed standard results in a 4/3 aspect ratio, but there's more to it then that (mount, sensor, distance)...allowing compatibility of lenses.
Is that right?
Message edited by author 2005-01-14 13:14:16.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 01:44:49 PM · #7 |
As far as I understand 4/3 is a smaller sensor with a 2x crop factor, the idea is that there will be cheaper lenses dedicated to the smaller sensor.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 02:02:20 PM · #8 |
The 4/3 sensor does in fact have a 4 to 3 aspect ratio.
Here is a link with detail on the size of the sensor.
4/3 sensor |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 02:09:57 PM · #9 |
I for one think a 4 to 3 aspect ratio is a good idea. The only reason that 35mm went as large a aspect ratio as they did was that they wanted to use cheap 35mm movie film and to get the most area possible they went to a rather large aspect ratio. Using a large aspect ratio makes it hard on the lens design. Note that MF and LF cameras all use aspect ratios that are much smaller.
The sensor size seems to be a good trade off between low cost and reasonable performance. It won’t be as low noise as the Rebel, 10D or 20D but it will be lower noise then say the F828 (which I can tell you is pretty much limited to ISO of 64 ).
CCD and CMOS sensors can have much higher resolution then film and so they can work with a smaller sensor, the only reasons not to make the sensor smaller are low light performance and dynamic range, both of which suffer with smaller sensors.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 02:12:35 PM · #10 |
My wedding photos were all taken on a MF camera and the square prints are gorgeous. I had a really good wedding photographer who knew how to make the most of it...
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 02:19:46 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
My wedding photos were all taken on a MF camera and the square prints are gorgeous. I had a really good wedding photographer who knew how to make the most of it... |
I fully agree, square prints can look great. The only reason people like 3 by 2 is that they are use to it from 35mm.
My guess is that the 4/3 spec is going for a 4 to 3 aspect ratio instead of 1 to 1 because most monitors are 4 to 3.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:02:23 PM · #12 |
i prefer the full frame 1.5:1 ratio 35mm offers. sort of like a wide screen movie as mentioned above.
what i can't understand is why it is so difficult to find mattes, and frames for this ratio. and how everyone assumes you'll always need to crop an image...
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:34:57 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
...My guess is that the 4/3 spec is going for a 4 to 3 aspect ratio instead of 1 to 1 because most monitors are 4 to 3. |
Here is a good overview of where the sensor "size types" nomenclature came from. Since they do derive from television standards, it's no surprise that they match the aspect ratios of our computer monitors, since those derive from the same standards. So Scott is correct, though the link is not direct, it's not coincidence that the aspect ratios are the same.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:35:27 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by soup:
i prefer the full frame 1.5:1 ratio 35mm offers. sort of like a wide screen movie as mentioned above.
what i can't understand is why it is so difficult to find mattes, and frames for this ratio. and how everyone assumes you'll always need to crop an image... |
That always seemed a bit odd to me as well. On the other hand Costco, when doing digital prints, only offers prints in 3:2 aspect ratio and yet I have to think that most people doing digital prints would have a camera that has an aspect ratio of 4:3. |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:38:05 PM · #15 |
yeah most printing at costco would likely have a 4:3 ratio camera.
the consumer models are almost all in this ratio. it seems to me the sensors of these things have been designed around the available mounting hardware... which seems like backwards logic...
or as steely dan might say 'pretzel logic'
Message edited by author 2005-01-14 15:38:43.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 04:17:25 PM · #16 |
This link explains 4:3 and others Sensor Sizes
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 05:44:39 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jonr:
So, what do you think? Will we see Leica lenses with Panasonic OIS system for 4/3? Or Panasonic SLR's? |
I think it is very interesting.
Panasonic made the sensor for the Canon 1D Mk1, so they have some interesting technology in house. The link with Leica technology might also be useful.
Lens stabilisation is a must imo (I definitely need it at the long end).
Concerning aspect ratio's;
I prefer 3:2 for landscape layouts and 3:4 for potrait layouts.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 06:26:12 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by colda:
As far as I understand 4/3 is a smaller sensor with a 2x crop factor, the idea is that there will be cheaper lenses dedicated to the smaller sensor. |
There is no crop factor as such, because the lenses are especially made for the sensor size and specs are stated in 4/3 terms not 35mm equivalents.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 08:35:26 PM · #19 |
I don't see why the 4/3rds sensors won't be able to match current APS sized sensors of the Canon and Nikon systems regarding noise as their sensors are not that much larger than the 4/3rds. The Canon 20D has a sensor slightly smaller than the 10D, although, (for all intents and purposes you should say they are the same size) and the 20D has improved the noise issue significantly over it's predecessor despite having 2 more megapixels. From my understanding, there is a special circuit in the Canon's chip that does extra processing to remove the unwanted noise. Canon's technology is using CMOS, which allows for processing of the image right on the chip, though I'm not sure that the CCD technology that the others are using, such as Nikon and Olympus, are able to process the image in that way. But still, it shows that there are technologies that can be developed that will hopefully significantly reduce noise in CCD chips as you don't have to have full frame sensors to get rid of noise.
Olympus users of the E-1 4/3rds camera have stated many times on other web site forums that they are very happy with image quality, even with higher noise levels at higher ISOs. They have claimed that the noise on the E-1 is very easy to clean up with NR software and that it is noise that can have aesthetic value. In addition I have heard them say that they are happy that Olympus is not processing the noise in camera as this gives them the creative choices of how much noise reduction they want versus how much lost detail and softening of the image. What E-1 users boast most of is color accuracy and greater dynamic range. One poster on DPReview did his own tests which resulted in a DR of over 6 stops. This is approaching negative film DR.
While full frame technology may give one the highest quality images they may be the most expensive and not everyone will want to carry around such large equipment. This may become a niche market for those that can afford it, but for the vast majority of wannabe users of digital SLRs, the smaller sensor cameras will probably be within their economic range and the camera companies realize this.
The pairing of Olympus and Panasonic is indeed good news for all as this will hopefully provide a lot more competition and lower prices. There are other companies as well, such as Sony, that have signed on to the 4/3rds standard so this could be very significant indeed.
Message edited by author 2005-01-14 20:42:46. |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 04:38:09 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see why the 4/3rds sensors won't be able to match current APS sized sensors of the Canon and Nikon systems regarding noise as their sensors are not that much larger than the 4/3rds. |
The DX ASP sensor from Nikon has a surface area of 370 mm².
The Olympus 4/3 sensor has a surface area of 243 mm².
That's a 34% difference.
I wouldn't call that "not much larger". It is true that the size difference in surface area of DX/APS-C vs 35mm is much larger.
I don't think that from a cost point of view 4/3 has many advantages. The bodies are not much cheaper, the lenses and their angle of view on the body are not much cheaper and as long as 4/3 is not sold in the volume like Canon APS-C and Nikon DX (standards on their own) they will never be able to match the economies of scale from these companies. The key advantage might be size and weight for the photographer, but is that really the case?
Perhaps 4/3 could benefit if the industry (read Sony) sees the sensor size as the next size for products like the F-serie. The 2/3 (76% smaller surface area) has run agains the limits of what is possible I think. Small gains of 2 or 4mp to go to 10 or 12mp compared to the F828 are hardly worth all the extra noise and problems with lenses. So put a 4/3 sensor in the camera and while you loose half the zoom range, you now have a sensor that can take up to 20mp compared to the F828 (and its noise). No problem to crop to get the tele back again either and hey, suddenly Sony has a product that makes it worh to add a mount for interchangeable lenses. Something Sony needs, because with the prices of the dSLR's coming down they are loosing a lot of customers in the F-market.
I for one wouldn't mind a camera that has 4/3 sensor, optical viewfinder (not TTL but rangefinder style) and a fast 20-40mm (4/3) zoom. Very high quality is a small package, like the small rangefinder-style cameras with fast primes from the seventies.
Anyway, any tool that helps a person to create good photographs (content-related not perse technological) is welcome. In then end people seem to be talking more about pixel quality, lenses and hardware than we are about photography itself.....
Errr, I am going to switch off my computer now and go out there! :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/15/2025 09:59:07 AM EST.
