 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Is four-thirds dead ?
Is four-thirds dead ? It seems that only Olympus is pursuing seriously. Panasonic came out with one body only... And both Fuji and Sigma just came out with new bodies but they weren't 4/3. Is the whole concept dead ? Is it just Oly format now ? x@x.com schrieb: > Is four-thirds dead ? No. > It seems that only Olympus is pursuing seriously. Panasonic came out with > one body only... They are new in this business - what do you expect? Is Konica-Minolta dead, because Sony released only one camera? At Photokina, there are three new FT cameras: - Olympus E-400 - Panasonic L1 - Leica D In 2006, Olympus released the E-330 also. So I don't think this is a sign for a dead system. > And both Fuji and Sigma just came out with new bodies but > they weren't 4/3. - Fuji: one body - Sigma: one body > Is the whole concept dead ? Is it just Oly format now ? No. Look at the new bodies I mentioned, and look at the glass - 2 new LEICA lenses for FT, 3 new Sigma lenses, 2 new Olympus lenses ... No - FT is still alive. Clemens > x@x.com schrieb: >> Is four-thirds dead ? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Clemens Mmmm, that E400 looks like a nice little travel camera, where can I buy one in the US? Pete D schrieb: > Mmmm, that E400 looks like a nice little travel camera, where can I buy one > in the US? Sorry, but: "Statement regarding E-400: It is not uncommon for products to be available in select regions. In the Americas, we chose to focus on the Evolt E-500 and Evolt E-330 due to their overwhelming success. Both products have won multiple awards." (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06091401olympuse400.asp) So I think the answer is "nowhere", at least for the next few months. Clemens Clemens Dorda skrev: > At Photokina, there are three new FT cameras: > - Olympus E-400 > - Panasonic L1 > - Leica D Two and a half. It isn't reasonable to regard Panasonic L1 and Leica D as completely distinct dSLR:s. > In 2006, Olympus released the E-330 also. So I don't think this is a > sign for a dead system. No. But it still is something for Oly and their playmates. Oly and Panny collaborate sort of, Panny and Leica collaborate intimately. 4/3 is said to sell well in Japan. But here in my neck of the woods I don't know anyone who owns a 4/3 camera. As far as I am concerned, the point with a system with a smaller sensor would be that it could use lighter and cheaper fast quality lenses. But I don't think that Oly has capitalised much on that theoretical advantage - in particuklarly not as far as "cheaper" is concerned. So with lenses just as expensive as anyone else's, everything else being equal, one is left with the smaller, and thus noisier, sensor without any real extra benefit. And now their unique selling point, the dust removal, has been pinched by the other manufactures as well. The point of the system as per now isn't obvious to me. Jan Böhme Jan Böhme schrieb: > Two and a half. It isn't reasonable to regard Panasonic L1 and Leica D > as completely distinct dSLR:s. That's right, but in detail there are differences (different RAW format e.g.) > 4/3 is said to sell well in Japan. But here in my neck of the woods I > don't know anyone who owns a 4/3 camera. I think it is not very realistic to measure 4/3 sellings with Canon or Nikon. I think, the 4/3 companies should concentrate to sell more cameras as Sony and Pentax first, then they are on the right way. > As far as I am concerned, the point with a system with a smaller sensor > would be that it could use lighter and cheaper fast quality lenses. But > I don't think that Oly has capitalised much on that theoretical > advantage - in particuklarly not as far as "cheaper" is concerned. Yes, the "cheaper" thing didn't become true until now, but lighter and smaller (see E-400) is coming. > So with lenses just as expensive as anyone else's, everything else > being equal, one is left with the smaller, and thus noisier, sensor > without any real extra benefit. Hmm, I can't agree with that. Look at the E-330, the noise is comparable with Sony and Nikon, and close to Canon (although not as good as Canon), and it offers LiveView (one thing I like very much on my E-330, great for macros and tripod shots) > And now their unique selling point, the > dust removal, has been pinched by the other manufactures as well. In the first moment - yes. But the Sony-system failed in several tests, and the Canon system has to proof its usability first. It looks usable, it's very similar with the Olympus SSW, but we'll see if it works as well. Clemens > Hmm, I can't agree with that. Look at the E-330, the noise is comparable > with Sony and Nikon, and close to Canon (although not as good as Canon), > and it offers LiveView (one thing I like very much on my E-330, great for > macros and tripod shots) Why am I finding it very hard to believe that using a tiny little screen to focus is better than using optical focusing??? Sorry don't believe you! Noise almost as good as the Canons and Nikons??? Sure it is! > > Hmm, I can't agree with that. Look at the E-330, the noise is comparable > > with Sony and Nikon, and close to Canon (although not as good as Canon), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why am I finding it very hard to believe that using a tiny little screen to > focus is better than using optical focusing??? Sorry don't believe you! I think his point was that if you are shooting low to the ground or at other awkward angles, having a movable LCD display is very useful. The 330 does have a very usable true optical VFas well, even if it is not quite up to the best of the DSLRs... > Noise almost as good as the Canons and Nikons??? Sure it is! Canon's noise performance is in a different ballpark, but the 330 is not all that different to the Sony and Nikon efforts. There's a comparison here with the 350D and the R1: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/page17.asp I would agree that the 330 is 'comparable', but not quite as good as, the Sony/Nikon efforts. With the efficiency of noise reduction software nowadays, I don't think this is anywhere the problem some folk allude to - but of course it all depends on what you shoot. mark.thomas.7@gmail.com schrieb: > I think his point was that if you are shooting low to the ground or at > other awkward angles, having a movable LCD display is very useful. The > 330 does have a very usable true optical VFas well, even if it is not > quite up to the best of the DSLRs... That's the point! I use the optical viewfinder for about 80% of my shots, and LiveView for about 20%. But in these 20% situations, I'm very happy to have the LiveView option. > I would agree that the 330 is 'comparable', but not quite as good as, > the Sony/Nikon efforts. With the efficiency of noise reduction > software nowadays, I don't think this is anywhere the problem some folk > allude to - but of course it all depends on what you shoot. I totally agree with you. Clemens mark.thomas.7@gmail.com skrev: > Canon's noise performance is in a different ballpark, but the 330 is > not all that different to the Sony and Nikon efforts. There's a > comparison here with the 350D and the R1: If we set aside Canon, with their proprietary sensors, Pentax is the dSLR system to beat when it comes to noise. Pentax have managed considerably better than Nikon - let alone KM - in the noise department. As far as I can tell without sacrificing more detail. > I would agree that the 330 is 'comparable', but not quite as good as, > the Sony/Nikon efforts. With the efficiency of noise reduction > software nowadays, I don't think this is anywhere the problem some folk > allude to - but of course it all depends on what you shoot. Noise reduction isn't a panacea, though, and the result depends largely on how it is done. (For an extreme case, look at the special "high ISO sensitivity" mode in many of the modern more expensive point 'n shoots.) And all noise reduction must lead to loss of some low-contrast detail - the question is only how much. I'd actually prefer not to have my camera fiddle with such things at all, but leave it to specialised reputable programs, such as Noise Ninja or NeatImage, when needed. (Would be good if PS had a useful noise reduction function, but they don't - yet, anyway.) Jan Böhme [] > (Would be good if PS had a useful noise reduction function, but they > don't - yet, anyway.) > > Jan Böhme Paint Shop Pro does include a rather good noise reduction function, and it's lower cost than PS. David David J Taylor skrev: > Paint Shop Pro does include a rather good noise reduction function, and > it's lower cost than PS. I did use PSP in parallel with PS some yeras ago, and it has some advantages compared to PS, but getting to know one image processing program well enough is enough of a task without trying to fiddle with more than one. The cost of PS isn't too much of an issue for me personally, as I can get an academia licence,which is considerably cheaper. And Noise Ninja or NeatImage have no big convenience disadvantages, as both are available as PS plugins. Jan Böhme >> > Hmm, I can't agree with that. Look at the E-330, the noise is >> > comparable [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 330 does have a very usable true optical VFas well, even if it is not > quite up to the best of the DSLRs... Right angle finders are available for most D-SLR's. In article <451c3371$0$15641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > Why am I finding it very hard to believe that using a tiny little screen to > focus is better than using optical focusing??? Actually it is. The screen is big and you can zoom in 10x on the part you want to focus on. I use it all the time with the tripod-shots. Because it uses the image from the real sensor, focusing this way is 100% exact. (unlike optical focusing) > Sorry don't believe you! > Noise almost as good as the Canons and Nikons??? Sure it is! There are some tests on the web that show the E330 has LESS noise than the Canon 350D and all other competitors in the pricerange. I have been in the situation to actually compare E1 and E330 images myself, with D2x, 1D mkIIn, 1Ds (mkI), Fuji S2, S3, and a few other camera's, and the difference with real-life images isn't as big as you think. The E330 is very good actually, clearly better than some of the others I mentioned. Best I can advise you is to keep an open mind and judge for yourself. Lourens > In article > <451c3371$0$15641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because it uses the image from the real sensor, focusing this way is > 100% exact. (unlike optical focusing) And you are saying optical focusing is not? Well damn, what was I thinking. >> Sorry don't believe you! >> Noise almost as good as the Canons and Nikons??? Sure it is! > > There are some tests on the web that show the E330 has LESS noise than > the Canon 350D and all other competitors in the pricerange. Thats interesting, "some tests" yet all the others show it the other way, mind you I have seen some shots taken of the moon where the person was trying to show how good his shots from his 1DsMkII were and to be honest I have taken better hand held shots with a Pentax DS. > I have been in the situation to actually compare E1 and E330 images > myself, with D2x, 1D mkIIn, 1Ds (mkI), Fuji S2, S3, and a few other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Best I can advise you is to keep an open mind and judge for yourself. Good advice, I have been getting some of my shots printed at 12x18 recently and have had to question if I really need to "upgrade" to a 10MP D-SLR from my 6MP D-SLR, deal is that the 10MP is not the driving force here (it will be nice of course). > Lourens In article <451d8be8$0$15668$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > And you are saying optical focusing is not? Well damn, what was I thinking. It isn't. > >> Sorry don't believe you! > >> Noise almost as good as the Canons and Nikons??? Sure it is! Well, I have actual experience with "professional" images that I got from other photographers for specific projects, and I believe my own eyes. > > There are some tests on the web that show the E330 has LESS noise than > > the Canon 350D and all other competitors in the pricerange. > > Thats interesting, "some tests" yet all the others show it the other way Exactly; see for example http://dpnow.com/2417.html Note that this site has actually measured the noise, instead of simply shot grey-patches and write some blurb about how it looks. > > Best I can advise you is to keep an open mind and judge for yourself. > > Good advice, I have been getting some of my shots printed at 12x18 recently > and have had to question if I really need to "upgrade" to a 10MP D-SLR from > my 6MP D-SLR, deal is that the 10MP is not the driving force here (it will > be nice of course). My record is 3x4 meters from an E1 image. See it here: http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=27388 depending on the subject a bit, this will work fine. Lourens >> As far as I am concerned, the point with a system with a smaller sensor >> would be that it could use lighter and cheaper fast quality lenses. But >> I don't think that Oly has capitalised much on that theoretical >> advantage - in particuklarly not as far as "cheaper" is concerned. > Yes, the "cheaper" thing didn't become true until now, but lighter and > smaller (see E-400) is coming. But, still, from the spec I could find the E-400 is about the same size as the Pentax K100D, which has a much bigger sensor. I agree with the other poster, this is another area where 4/3 has failed. "four-thirds.org" says that Olympus had the OM-1 in mind when they designed the 4/3, but all the bodies out there are much bigger than the OM-1. x@x.com schrieb: > But, still, from the spec I could find the E-400 is about the same size as the > Pentax K100D, which has a much bigger sensor. I think you shouldn't compare the body itself - compare the body with the glass attached. Compare the E-400 + 40-150mm (new version) against the K100D + 50-200: the Pentax has equal width, is 1.5mm higher and 11.5mm deeper. And it is 220g heavier than the Olympus E-400 with 40-150mm lens attached. Clemens > x@x.com schrieb: >> But, still, from the spec I could find the E-400 is about the same size [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Clemens I would be worried about a very light SLR camera moving when the penta mirror/prism moves out of the way. According to Pete D <no@email.com>: > > x@x.com schrieb: > >> But, still, from the spec I could find the E-400 is about the same size [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I would be worried about a very light SLR camera moving when the penta > mirror/prism moves out of the way. Well ... the pentaprism or penta-mirror normally does not move (exclusive of the cameras like the original Nikon F where you could remove the pentaprism and replace it with a different one with or without metering (e.g. the Photomic TN), or with a waist level finder or something similar -- and that was not moving at the moment of exposure. It is the single thin mirror in the box behind the lens (between the lens and the film or sensor) which has to move -- and that is much lighter than the pentprism or penta-mirror assembly. But still, with a lighter camera body, it could impart some vibration to the body/lens assembly. Enjoy, DoN.  SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >As far as I am concerned, the point with a system with a smaller sensor >would be that it could use lighter and cheaper fast quality lenses. But >I don't think that Oly has capitalised much on that theoretical >advantage - in particuklarly not as far as "cheaper" is concerned. Olympus took an entirely different direction. They chose to concentrate on making near-telecentric lenses, something that was only practicable because of the smaller sensor. The result is a range of top quality lenses that are optically outstanding - there is not a trace of colour fringing with the top range Zuiko Digital lenses. But the Kodak-made Four Thirds sensors are not up to the quality of the lenses. Only the Panasonic-made 7.5 MP sensor measures up, with a very good performance at higher ISOs, something that could never be said of the Kodak sensors. But 7.5 MP is not competitive when so many new entry-level models have 10 MP. >So with lenses just as expensive as anyone else's, everything else >being equal, one is left with the smaller, and thus noisier, sensor >without any real extra benefit. And now their unique selling point, the >dust removal, has been pinched by the other manufactures as well. > >The point of the system as per now isn't obvious to me. All true. The future of Four Thirds depends on the E-1 successor, but after several false starts with Kodak sensors this is still many months away from production. The sensor will be made by Panasonic and needs at least 12 MP to be credible. Tony Polson skrev: > But the Kodak-made Four Thirds sensors are not up to the quality of > the lenses. Only the Panasonic-made 7.5 MP sensor measures up, with a > very good performance at higher ISOs, Is this due to stronger noise reduction or to the sensor itself? The reason I ask is that there are lots of people over at the Panny forum of dpreview.com who complain about the new FZ50 and say, yes, it has les noise than the FZ30, but it hasn't any more detail, if anything, rather less, despite its pixel advantage. I realise that there are quite a few specific FZ30 fanboys and fangirls over there, who are wont to criticise every other camera, but it still seems as a rather widesperad complaint. > But 7.5 MP is not competitive when so many new entry-level models have > 10 MP. I suppose it isn't when it comes to competing for first-time DSLR buyers. But that's silly, really. I mean, I wouldn't dream of switching from my 30D to a 10 MP camera to get more resolution - because I hardly get more at all. If I'll switch to anything, it certainly won't be to get from 8 to 10 MP. And it can't be all that much more to gain from 7,5 MP. > future of Four Thirds depends on the E-1 successor, but > after several false starts with Kodak sensors this is still many > months away from production. The sensor will be made by Panasonic and > needs at least 12 MP to be credible. But then it _will_ push the noise limit for such a small sensor. As Roger Clark is capable of arguing much more competently than I, there is no way beating the laws of physics. Jan Böhme Jan B?hme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote: >> In 2006, Olympus released the E-330 also. So I don't think this is a >> sign for a dead system. > No. But it still is something for Oly and their playmates. Oly and > Panny collaborate sort of, Panny and Leica collaborate intimately. Yes I agree. As I said in my original post, the other companies (eg: Sigma and Fuji) who had "commited" to 4/3, are producing new SLRs, but no 4/3. It looks like THEY don't believe in it, which means it has become a Olympus + Panasonic format, but far from a standard. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.