| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2003 08:50:48 AM · #1 |
Bumping Drew's question to a new thread because I'd like an answer also -
What's the general concensus among the photography buffs about the four-thirds standard? As someone
who's never owned an SLR, should I give serious consideration to waiting for a camera that follows this
standard (since I don't have any legacy lenses)? |
|
|
|
03/05/2003 08:56:43 AM · #2 |
I wasn't following the other thread and I must admit that I don't know what the 4/3 standard is... maybe some enlightenment?
|
|
|
|
03/05/2003 09:07:37 AM · #3 |
See HERE for more info on the 4/3 system .....
|
|
|
|
03/05/2003 09:12:34 AM · #4 |
In that case, I think the system has merit for sure, but the problem I see is that higher end and professional photographers who already have extensive lens systems are gonna want to continue using them instead of buying all new glass. These people want their lenses to be interchangeable between their digital and film bodies.
This system has merit when a photographer decides to abandon film and go completely digital. The 'open standard' will also have to be adopted by more manufacturers than just olympus. There has never been such a standard in the film market and i would be curious to see if it could catch on in the digital arena...
|
|
|
|
03/05/2003 09:23:03 AM · #5 |
Does this all boil down to an aspect ratio thing or am I still confused?
|
|
|
|
03/05/2003 09:45:43 AM · #6 |
In that case I will copy my reply from that thread into this new one (don't know why a new one had to be started anyway):
The 4/3" sensor has a size of 18x13.5mm.
The APS sized ones of the D100 and D60/10D/*ist D are about 25.1x16.7mm.
This may seem little, but the surface of an APS one is 172% the size of a 4/3".
So I wonder how the ISO perfomance, dynamic range and resolving power of the 4/3 will be compared to the APS ones (you'd expected it would perform a lot worse, not bad, just worse). The small size of the camera, the effect on lenses (300mm acts as a 600mm one) and the assumed processing speed look very intersting. I would like to see a serious (dpreview) test with it. Perhaps it does very well.
On the other hand I wonder how the *ist D will perform. It looks really interesting and the 11 point autofocus seems promising.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2003 09:57:15 AM · #7 |
And about the 'standard'.
They will have a very hard time as Nikon is going to stick to their 1.5 crop factor APS sized ccd's for which they are developing a whole range of lenses. Canon already makes bigger CMOS sensors and Fuji isn't building a 4/3 yet (the S2 SCCD is bigger). Pentax is entering an APS sized ccd camera as well and has no gain by entering the 4/3" consortium.
They are not going to win over current SLR users, because those lenses don't seem to fit?
I believe this idea originated from the time that an APS-sized-sensor dSLR costed between 3500 to 10000 dollar. Now you have the Canons 10D for 1500...... I hope the 4/3 is at least 40% cheaper, else I don't think it makes a lot of sense.
(btw, I saw a second hand E-serie today in the window of the local camera store -expensive Dutch/European bastards!- for 1500 dollar.... The shop-owner has a very expensive BMW yes.)
And 1500 dollar for a D10 is not the end of the price-drop, as long as Canon and Nikon cans follow the 4/3 price and when Canon introduces special wideangles later this year like Nikon did, the 4/3 is going to get a hard time.
Message edited by author 2003-03-05 10:00:48.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2003 10:21:38 AM · #8 |
Four Thirds Concepts
The core idea behind the 4/3 concept and proposed standard is a strategy that provides for a 100% digital solution. In many other approaches, there are compromises between the analogue and digital worlds. These compromises can include light fall off on the corners and edges of the CCD when traditional lenses are utilized. Or, they may mean irregular magnification ratios with standard lenses. Or, they can include very specific optical challenges when using wide-angle lenses. There are many compromises as we transition towards digital.
With the 4/3 solution, most of the problems are resolved. The lenses are purpose-built to fit with the CCD chip and align the light to target the chip perfectly, which means perpendicularly.
With several manufacturers jumping onboard to support this new standard, this will result in better consumer choice, lower acquisition costs, as well as flexible interchange between brands.
Lenses can be "faster" with wider aperture settings when they are matched to the CCD chip and that will provide greater detail in shadows and low light. Richer, more accurate colours will also result when the light transmitted by the lens hits the CCD perpendicularly. Higher megapixel resolutions will also likely result in time.
Size and weight of the lenses will also be greatly reduced, which will be a huge benefit compared to some of the early products or traditional analogue lens designs. My wife will appreciate this point, as she resists using my overweight Nikon cameras and lenses.
I hope that this summary helps. Cheers, Michael |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 08:30:58 PM · #9 |
//www.four-thirds.org/en/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf
see page 3 and 4.
this "effect" they talk about, when the periphery, or as we call them: "corners", where the image "dims"...
Isn't that just called vignetting?
and, also, the ONLY way THEY get around this is by making a smaller sensor size?
EDIT: the way Canon and Nikon gets around it is by making better quality lenses.
and, seeing as they use a smaller sensor size, as the Megapixels increase, noise will be more problematic, rather than with a full-frame sensor?
at the moment, all i see is a larger crop-factor, and NO reason to adopt.
does anyone see anything else in all this?
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 20:32:02.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 09:26:14 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by wimbello:
//www.four-thirds.org/en/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf
see page 3 and 4.
this "effect" they talk about, when the periphery, or as we call them: "corners", where the image "dims"...
Isn't that just called vignetting?
and, also, the ONLY way THEY get around this is by making a smaller sensor size?
EDIT: the way Canon and Nikon gets around it is by making better quality lenses.
and, seeing as they use a smaller sensor size, as the Megapixels increase, noise will be more problematic, rather than with a full-frame sensor?
at the moment, all i see is a larger crop-factor, and NO reason to adopt.
does anyone see anything else in all this? |
Saying that Canon and Nikon build "better quality" lenses is not accurate. With the exception of the few "digital only" lenses, they build lenses with image circles sized for 24mmx36mm film/sensors. This means that the lenses are excessively bigger, heavier and bulkier than necessary for someone who is interested in shooting with a smaller sensor.
As for image quality, ask someone who shoots an Olympus E-1 or their new Evolt. My experience with Olympus Zuiko lenses (I used to have an OM4) is that they are top quality all the way. The lenses are designed around the sensor, NOT the other way around.
With the 4/3 system it is easier for lens manufacturers to make faster lenses less expensively without sacrificing quality. You can have coverage from 11mm-200mm (22mm-400mm 35mm equivalent) with 2 lightweight lenses, both with f2.8-3.5. at a price of around $1800 for both lenses. With the price for an E-1 body (which has weather sealing like the 1D et. al.) at just about $1100, you can have that wide coverage range and the camera body for just under $3K.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 09:58:18 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Saying that Canon and Nikon build "better quality" lenses is not accurate. With the exception of the few "digital only" lenses, they build lenses with image circles sized for 24mmx36mm film/sensors. This means that the lenses are excessively bigger, heavier and bulkier than necessary for someone who is interested in shooting with a smaller sensor.
As for image quality, ask someone who shoots an Olympus E-1 or their new Evolt. My experience with Olympus Zuiko lenses (I used to have an OM4) is that they are top quality all the way. The lenses are designed around the sensor, NOT the other way around.
With the 4/3 system it is easier for lens manufacturers to make faster lenses less expensively without sacrificing quality. You can have coverage from 11mm-200mm (22mm-400mm 35mm equivalent) with 2 lightweight lenses, both with f2.8-3.5. at a price of around $1800 for both lenses. With the price for an E-1 body (which has weather sealing like the 1D et. al.) at just about $1100, you can have that wide coverage range and the camera body for just under $3K. |
What i'm getting at, is the reason they have 'less' 'periphery darkening' is because they have a larger crop factor, so there is nothing revolutionary about this. I could fit a Canon or Nikon lens onto a 4/3 system with an adapter, and get the same effect. (a 50mm would turn into a 100mm, so i would not have to carry the weight of a 100mm lens.)
it seems (at least to me, but then again, weight is no issue to me.), that you may lose out on image quality when put next to a full-size sensor of the same megapixel value.
pureley because the photosites on the 4/3's system will be denser than the full-frame. (this is going on current technology, where denser = quality loss)
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 09:59:18 PM · #12 |
| Out of curiosity, Alan, why did you reply to a thread that was 22 months old? |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 10:02:24 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Out of curiosity, Alan, why did you reply to a thread that was 22 months old? |
fair point, it was the one that popped up that seemed most relevant when i searched.
i was seeking discussion and views on the system.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 10:34:35 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by wimbello:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Saying that Canon and Nikon build "better quality" lenses is not accurate. With the exception of the few "digital only" lenses, they build lenses with image circles sized for 24mmx36mm film/sensors. This means that the lenses are excessively bigger, heavier and bulkier than necessary for someone who is interested in shooting with a smaller sensor.
As for image quality, ask someone who shoots an Olympus E-1 or their new Evolt. My experience with Olympus Zuiko lenses (I used to have an OM4) is that they are top quality all the way. The lenses are designed around the sensor, NOT the other way around.
With the 4/3 system it is easier for lens manufacturers to make faster lenses less expensively without sacrificing quality. You can have coverage from 11mm-200mm (22mm-400mm 35mm equivalent) with 2 lightweight lenses, both with f2.8-3.5. at a price of around $1800 for both lenses. With the price for an E-1 body (which has weather sealing like the 1D et. al.) at just about $1100, you can have that wide coverage range and the camera body for just under $3K. |
What i'm getting at, is the reason they have 'less' 'periphery darkening' is because they have a larger crop factor, so there is nothing revolutionary about this. I could fit a Canon or Nikon lens onto a 4/3 system with an adapter, and get the same effect. (a 50mm would turn into a 100mm, so i would not have to carry the weight of a 100mm lens.)
it seems (at least to me, but then again, weight is no issue to me.), that you may lose out on image quality when put next to a full-size sensor of the same megapixel value.
pureley because the photosites on the 4/3's system will be denser than the full-frame. (this is going on current technology, where denser = quality loss) |
Theoretically, you COULD mount a canon or nikon lens to a E1, but why? I highly doubt that you would gain anything other than non-functional autofocus and auto-exposure.
You could extend your argument the other direction and say that the 1DSmkII system and all "L" lenses are inferior to a "cheap" Seagull TLR because the L lenses don't cover 6x7cm film.
If weight doesn't bother you, why not carry a Mamiya with a Leaf back, laptop and array of lenses? Or better still, an 8x10 view camera and have your film drum scanned?
Simply saying that photosite density is the measure of image quality is not right either. The 10D and the 20D have the same sized sensor and the 20D has 2 more MP in the same area. Does that mean the 20D is not capable of the same image quality as the 10D? I think most people who have used both would disagree.
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 22:37:36.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 07:33:00 AM · #15 |
I apologise for offending you spazmo, i'm just on the hunt for info.
my point is that in all the info i've read so far, the 4/3 system is not revolutionary, or amazing. it is just a larger crop factor. (aside the theory of standard/universal mount system, which i agree with.)
i would much prefer a standardised lens mount system with a full frame sensor. it's just the way i work. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 07:37:08 AM · #16 |
In reference to this:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Does that mean the 20D is not capable of the same image quality as the 10D? I think most people who have used both would disagree. |
I do agree that the 20D is capable of a higher image resolution, but my comment was based on current technology.
When the 10D was released, IT WAS the current tech.
Now, if you crammed an extra 2MP into the 10D's sensor size when it was released, then the quality may have suffered. (in terms of digital noise.)
but SINCE the 10D, i'm sure they have made advancements in mass production of the larger MP sensors, allowing the 20D to maintain the same 1.6 crop factor, and image quality. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 09:22:23 AM · #17 |
As a long time 35mm user (nikon mostly) I was very disappointed that when the major manafacturers such as Canon, Nikon, etc. came out with their digital SLRs that they kept the same aspect ratio as 35mm film. Having to crop the longest dimention for standard sizes such as 8x10 has always been a real pain with 35mm. It is difficult to try to find a frame for 8x12.
To me the biggest advantage of the 4/3 system is the ability to reproduce your image on standard paper sizes without cropping.
I would and have considered the move to the Olympus system if it wasn't for their focus by wire lenes. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 09:30:00 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
To me the biggest advantage of the 4/3 system is the ability to reproduce your image on standard paper sizes without cropping. |
Eh?
4/3 = 1.3333 (the same aspect ratio as most computer screens and most P&S cameras)
10/8 = 1.25
7/5 = 1.4
6/4 = 1.5
You still have to crop to print 8x10's, 5x7's and even 4x6's with the 4/3 system. At least with a 3:2 DSLR, you can print 4x6's without any cropping (although I never have 4x6's made, they are too "amateur" looking in my personal opinion. I use 4x5's for all my proofs. I even scored crop lines into my focusing screen to make composition a no-brainer so I know nothing will get cut off, which allows me to use automated tools/actions to crop to my preferred 5:4 aspect ratio.)
Message edited by author 2005-01-07 09:35:34. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 12:16:54 PM · #19 |
1.333.. is much closer to 1.25 than the 1.5 of 35mm or say the 1.519 of nikons D70 sensor (23.7mmx15.6mm). At 8x10" your talking about a crop of .667" for the 4/3 sensor compared to 2.154" of the D70s sensor. That is a HUGE difference.
I do however see your point that they don't fit exactly, but I was generalizing. I print everything full frame so the 4/3-system camera would make a nice proportional border unlike the resulting border created by other systems.
Why should you be forced into scoring crop line on your focusing screen? For the same reason I chose the RB system (6x7) over Hasselblad (6x6). Why plan to decrease the size/resolution of the final image?
If the sensor was made closer (ratio NOT size) to standard output sizes it would be much better than the 35mm based system. That was my point.
|
|
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: 09/14/2025 08:53:11 AM EDT.
