huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Olympus and Panasonic announce Micro Four Thirds System
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Why do we need a continuation thread?
|
zuiko
Olympian...
Reged: 19/06/2006
Posts: 438
Loc: Norfolk.
|
|
Something new is happening in the world of photography, an open forum to discus its merits and development and ponder the effect on the world of compact and DSLR. I think it is a bold step, not as bold as having Kevin Pieterson as captain of England. In that respect bold has clearly another meaning.
David
--------------------
" ENCEFFC!" "ENNSEAEFFSEA!"" ENNCEFFC!" "ENNCEEFC!"
|
mike_j
nobbut a beginner
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1350
|
|
My greatest wish for the new format is that it will have an adaptor for Leica M mount so I can use my lovely glass on an affordable digital body. The problem willbr the EVF focussing screen of course since there won't be a rangefinder
|
RogerMac
Hotshoe Shuffler
Reged: 25/03/2007
Posts: 497
|
|
Quote:
My greatest wish for the new format is that it will have an adaptor for Leica M mount so I can use my lovely glass on an affordable digital body. The problem will be the EVF focusing screen of course since there won't be a rangefinder
If the flange to film plane distance is more than about 22mm then it's a racing certainty that someone will do it.
Personally I am hoping for a Canon FD adaptor but I think that's less likely
Roger
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3650
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
Something small with good build quality and a sensor that isn't too overcrowded will interest me.
PS - Something I can take anywhere, when I don't want to take my DSLR but want better quality and ease of use than you get with a compact.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
Edited by alanS (06/08/2008 21:38)
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 625
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
I've pondered over this exciting news about Micro 4/3rds today and I keep coming back to the same conclusion. I think it's going to be seen as a major development in digital photography in the future. The 35mm SLR reached it's optimum size in the 1970s and then gradually grew fatter and clumsier again as more technology was stuffed into it. Had the digital revolution not occurred, the 35mm SLR of the late 1990s was due a slashing in size anyway. The introduction of digital cameras interrupted that process as even newer technology had to be stuffed into bodies again. This brings us to Micro 4/3rds. Could it be a major leap back to the future of smaller, optimum sized bodies and lenses? Not too small, and big enough to pack a punch in delivering high quality 'go anywhere' image making. Yes, I think so.
--------------------
Rob
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
The 35mm SLR reached it's optimum size in the 1970s and then gradually grew fatter and clumsier again as more technology was stuffed into it.
I have to disagree... I find most modern AF SLRs to be just the right size for me. There are some that are a bit big even to my taste (the pro models mainly) and some that are too small (entry level models mainly). This applies to both film and digital.
Remember one size doesn't fit everybody.......
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20924
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
I agree with you El Sid. Smaller DSLR/SLR design is no good for me.
Handling the GX20 the other day it felt like a toy in my hands.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
I only ever owned one of the smaller breed of 35mm SLRs that came in in the 70s and 80s - the FM3A (and yes, I know that was much later - but it was built to the same form-factor as the FM/FE/FA range). And one of the first things I did with that was to bolt a drive onto it to imrove it for hand-holding. Without that it's too small for my fairly averagely-sized adult male hands, and too light to balance the lenses properly.
The larger heavier 70s bodies that I've owned and used never needed any of that - they fitted and balanced properly as they were. The same was true for the first more modern 35mm SLR I bought - the F301. That had a built-in drive and the inevitable greater mass of batteries to power it - again, it fitted my hands and balanced far better than a smaller lighter body could, offering a much more stable platform for shooting. The larger moment of inertia is a benefit, from a hand-held shooting point of view. The drive to smaller bodies in the 70s and 80s was, IMO, largely just a fashion, and had little to do with photographic requirements. I would think that's probably why the most heavily used pro-systems didn't follow suit then, any more than they have now.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
Edited by huwevans (07/08/2008 10:10)
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37849
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Well that's undoubtedly true for some, and inescapably wrong for others. I've always found the OMs and M series Pentaxes very comfortable indeed, and I think it's fair to say I'm far from alone. I've had drives for both OM and MX, and for me it really wrecked the balance. That said, I never use either system with long lenses (up to 135mm for the Pentax, 150mm for the OMs), which would change the situation a bit. But I never found them too small, and there were plenty of travel photographers in particular who used the OM system because of its combination of strength, quality and size and weight - for many, it was a real boon. I've got two cameras that aren't comfortable for size and/or weight issues - the original Contax RTS, which is just too heavy to use comfortably, and my EOS 1V when fitted with the booster - that's only comfortable with my 300mm f4. Aside from that, I've been comfortable with just about every SLR I've ever owned in terms of size and weight, but the most comfortable of all are Contaxes - the small 139, and the fairly hefty RX. Small cameras don't suit everyone, but then neither do large ones.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 625
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Clearly there are mixed views on the size/handling issue and I can appreciate that it is very much an area of individual preference. No one can argue with the logic of best performance coming from what feels 'right' in one's hands. I had an EOS 30 with a battery box and this was a nicely balanced and comfortable camera to hold. But after a couple of years, I started to get a little cheesed off with the weight and size of it and I felt conspicuous and rather self-concious every time it came out of the bag. I've since grown to prefer much smaller cameras for both the portability advantage and their relative inconspicuousness. But yes, it's all about personal preference and I concede bigger is right for some.
--------------------
Rob
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I've always found the OMs and M series Pentaxes very comfortable indeed, and I think it's fair to say I'm far from alone. I've had drives for both OM and MX, and for me it really wrecked the balance.
Same experience with OMs ...
The odd thing is that since I got a Canon 5D the OMs do feel too small ... the 5D is still marginally too big for my hands though.
And I still don't understand why a wee electronics card should result in the body bloating so much.
|
Craftysnapper
enthusiast
Reged: 05/01/2006
Posts: 327
|
|
Quote:
That said, I never use either system with long lenses (up to 135mm for the Pentax, 150mm for the OMs), which would change the situation a bit.
Small cameras don't suit everyone, but then neither do large ones.
I think the 4/3rds micro would change that situation as Zuiko digital lens the size of a 135mm would have a angle of veiw of 270mm and a 135mm equvalent (75mm) would/should be smaller than a origianl 135mm lens.
I completly agree with the last sentance. 
--------------------
My Glass Is 4/3rds Full
Paul
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2334
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
My greatest wish for the new format is that it will have an adaptor for Leica M mount so I can use my lovely glass on an affordable digital body. The problem will be the EVF focusing screen of course since there won't be a rangefinder
If the flange to film plane distance is more than about 22mm then it's a racing certainty that someone will do it.
Personally I am hoping for a Canon FD adaptor but I think that's less likely
Roger
Just about any adaptor should be possible with this separation provided the bodies can accept a dumb lens. If the camera takes off seriously I would expect SRB Gritum to make the converters at a price that makes them a reasonable profit on each one. They have a reputation of being rather good at that sort of thing.
|
Bone_Idle
Mr Maybe
Reged: 28/07/2006
Posts: 1390
Loc: Bradford
|
|
When sigma announced the DP1 people were excited about a true enthusiasts compact camera. Olympus have taken it a step further, but people seem very negative about it.
With the micro 4/3rds system we'll have a camera with a similar sized sensor to the DP1, interchangeable lenses, and probably a darn site cheaper too (£600 for a fixed lens compact just seems too much). What's not to like about it?
Add in some nice fast primes (pancakes, hopefully) and a couple of zooms and it seems like a great idea.
You also have to bear in mind that Olympus make some incredible lenses, even the kit lenses are good.
--------------------
Thanks
Nick
|
welshwizard645
addict
Reged: 29/09/2006
Posts: 439
Loc: Out of my mind
|
|
Quote:
I agree with you El Sid. Smaller DSLR/SLR design is no good for me.
Handling the GX20 the other day it felt like a toy in my hands.
Why do I get the impression you have hairy hands Fen? 
|
welshwizard645
addict
Reged: 29/09/2006
Posts: 439
Loc: Out of my mind
|
|
As I have been out of circulation for a week and slllloowwwllyyyyy getting plastered on Paulaner Oktoberfest Bier 
Have there been any announcements on a MAXI 4:3rds format  So many times I am hampered ordering prints that the 3:2 of my camera is incompatible with 4:3 of prints... 
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
When sigma announced the DP1 people were excited about a true enthusiasts compact camera. Olympus have taken it a step further, but people seem very negative about it.
 I thought the response had been really very positive. Perhaps the negativity has been evident on some other forums - here, in this thread and its parent thread, plus the thread relating to Damien's poll, most people seem to be very enthusiastic, with only quite a small proportion expressing misgivings, I thought. Also, FWIW, that poll has (at the time of posting) 62% of respondents expressing the opinion that it 'could be great'. I'd have thought that's a pretty impressive figure for any generally new direction in camera equipment - no?
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
When sigma announced the DP1 people were excited about a true enthusiasts compact camera. Olympus have taken it a step further, but people seem very negative about it.
Possibly because the promise of the Sigma concept has not quite translated to the reality of the product?......
Micro-4/3 has the potential to be a very good idea...... as long as the execution is up to it - particularly with respect to AF, view-finding technology and "shutter" lag. In these areas I would say it must significantly outperform compacts and be sufficiently close to SLR standards to win converts from both the point 'n' shoot and SLR camps - certainly for those die-hard SLR users who want a compact with SLR quality superior high ISO performance won't be enough if it's still as slow to respond as many compacts can be...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
