Damien Demolder
Tharg the Mighty
Reged: 22/08/2001
Posts: 1021
Loc: Essex born and badly-bred
|
|
My immediate thoughts as I began to read the press information on Micro Four Thirds was that the last thing we need is another digital standard. We have quite enough, what with APS-C, full frame and the current Four Thirds system.
However, as I read on I began to warm to the concept. The idea of a smaller interchangeable lens system seems quite exciting. Although I have no more information than Olympus and Panasonic have made public, I'm hoping that what this system will produce is compact style cameras that let you take the lenses off - and that's what I've been waiting for all my life.
What do you think of the new system? Who should it be aimed at? Is it a good idea that will help Olympus and Panasonic advance their influence in the photo market? And... will it be successful?
Head to the home page to take part in our poll - What are your first impressions of the Micro Four Thirds system?
Thanks for taking part.
damien
--------------------
.
See my photographs at www.wordsonpictures.com
.
|
APchris
veteran
Reged: 06/05/2006
Posts: 1597
Loc: Lincolnshire
|
|
Sounds like a brilliant idea! Just what I've been waiting for too, having made the decision not to get into DSLRs 
--------------------
Chris 
Better a bad day on the water than a good day at the office 
My Flickr sets
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2536
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Hopefully Olympus and Panasonic will produce cameras that aren't just clones of each other - I think the fact that two competing manufacturers are adopting the system makes it more likely that keen photographers will get the feature set they want.
--------------------
John
Who could suppose that angels move the stars, or be so superstitious as to suppose that because one cannot see one's soul at the end of a microscope, it does not exist?
R.D.Laing The Politics Of Experience
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
Dave_Cox
old'n'grumpy
Reged: 12/07/2006
Posts: 3095
Loc: somewhere in Sussex
|
|
The biggest drawback to this system so far as I'm concerned- the electronic viewfinder. I won't have any camera that doesn't have an optical finder.
--------------------
Growing old disgracefully!
http://snapper56.deviantart.com/gallery/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave2006/
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
The biggest drawback to this system so far as I'm concerned- the electronic viewfinder.
I agree.
This body concept together with a proper optical viewfinder (and manual rangefinder focusing) could be very, very interesting indeed. But a hold-at-arms-length jobbie, or one of those even worse electronic viewfinders like the Ricoh GX100 - not interested at all.
|
APchris
veteran
Reged: 06/05/2006
Posts: 1597
Loc: Lincolnshire
|
|
An optical viewfinder was high on my list of requirements when I bought my current camera, a Casio EX-P600, but I have to admit I rarely use it. The reason - it doesn't show the full 100% of the view (true of many OVFs, including SLRs) and has zero information such as shutter speed/aperture etc.
The electronic VF solves those problems but the last time I looked through one I wasn't impressed. Maybe (hopefully) they are better now!
--------------------
Chris
Better a bad day on the water than a good day at the office
My Flickr sets
|
Footloose
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/08/2005
Posts: 3188
Loc: Berkshire based.
|
|
Regarding EVF's, I'd guess the devices used on digital Cameras are built down to a price. After all, they have been in use on Digital Video Cameras for some time and a. I don't see images on cinema screens showing signs of miss-focussing which is all the more impressive considering the levels of magnification which are far greater than what a DSLR is expected to work with.
I wonder if in a few years time we will see Micro4/3rds optics being used on a semi-pro DVC. The benefits would be significant, the same optics being used for still and video cameras.
--------------------
Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
|
Hotblack
Dead Horse Flogger
Reged: 07/03/2006
Posts: 7344
Loc: Upstairs in the spare room.
|
|
I'm interested to see how things pan out on this. A compact with interchangeable lenses (effectively). I think it could be a very practical solution for those times when a DSLR is just too bulky.
--------------------
Cheers
David
David J White Photography
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I don't see images on cinema screens showing signs of miss-focussing which is all the more impressive considering the levels of magnification which are far greater than what a DSLR is expected to work with.
Well, most movies are still shot on film ...
The problem with EVFs is the very low resolution compared with the sensor. The loupe used to examine the screen in EVFs is also seemingly invariably of very poor quality.
|
Terrywoodenpic
A whiff of silicon...
Reged: 21/01/2006
Posts: 367
Loc: Saddleworth UK
|
|
The micro 4-3rds compact Idea is excellent in principal.
However The 4-3rds sensor still has problems on the noise front at high ISO settings.
Likewise the electronic viewfinders that I have seen have not yet come of age quality wise.
As a small street style cameras, with interchangeable lenses, finds its adherents mostly requiring fast focussing and excellent low light performance, and with bright accurate viewfinders, I think it may be some time before a 4-3rds camera is likely to meet those needs.
However I think Olympus are on to something important with this development.
--------------------
63 happy photo years from amateur to professional and back to amateur
|
Zou
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 2117
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
Well, if the lenses are fast, most people won't need higher ISOs... As film users, how often did you use films faster than 400 ISO? Aside from an occasional foray into 1600, the answer for me is hardly ever.
Hopefully we'll be seeing a Minolta/Leica CL type thing in terms of the small size/fast interchangeable lens format. 4/3 is plenty good enough for that use.
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
However The 4-3rds sensor still has problems on the noise front at high ISO settings.
This is all relative ... compared today's small sensor compact cameras, today's 4/3 sensor cameras have superb noise performance; well up to 35mm film standard. Sure full frame sensors will always have an advantage, but the potential size & weight advantages of the smaller format should offset this.
Horses for courses, as usual.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2334
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
The problem with these very desirable micro four thirds and DP1 C size cameras seems to be focussing.
Are we likely to see an AF system based on matching images from a twin window rangefinder? Come to that I wouldn't mind a manual version, as long as the rangefinder windows were embedded in the optical viewfinder or even good evf.
Thinking further about this, why not a tri window rangefinder with the windows arranged symmetrically about the lens; this would work for targets in which detail was not only arranged vertically but also horizontally and all angles in between.
Edited by Learning (10/08/2008 19:06)
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
I do believe Micro-4/3rds could be a very important development in digital camera technology - certainly more so than the standard 4/3rds which I feel hasn't really offered the advantages over APS-c that were claimed. Micro-4/3 OTOH looks as if really will be significantly smaller and more compact than any SLR can manage...
I agree that the nature of the viewfinder is going to be crucial. I can live with only having a rear screen for composition/focusing as I'm now used to the one on my Panny compact. That said I'm not so sure I'd like to use it on a Micro-4/3 camera - and certainly not with anything with any lens of relatively long focal length - as the lenses are inevitably going to have to be a bit bulkier than any compact which may lead to a touch more mass than is ideal for a steady hold at arms length. An optical range finder system would be very nice though the experiences of Leica would suggest that anything over 100mm (equivalent) could be a bit tricky - I suppose a Visoflex type add-on could be the answer to that... I must say that my experience of EVF's to date is that they are basically awful - Oly/Panasonic would certainly need to address this issue if that's the route they go with. An add on EVF (a la Ricoh) that works might be a simpler answer for long lense use than a reflex unit if the camera were to be a range-finder though...
Come on Oly............. you've perked our interest - now just don't let the gestation period be quite an long as the E3's..........
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3650
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
More choice has to be a good thing and a small quality camera with changeable lenses that can (hopefully) be carried in a coat pocket has got to be of interest. How many here are a little frustrated with the high end compacts with fiddly and awkward manual control and high noise one you venture past ISO 100? More than just me maybe?
I looked at an Olympus 420 with 25mm lens at the weekend and it was really too big for a carry in your pocket thing IMHO so I'll be looking forward to a more compact system.
Gotta be good news. Dunno about EVF though, I hope it's good.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2334
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
This could be very neat. Getting rid of the mirror mechanism and AF of DSLRs and the power zoom of compacts would reduce power requirements of motors, the cpu and hence the size and weight of the battery. I understand that there is now a memory card format even smaller than SD. Lenses like the collapsable Elmars would add to portability. We could have very pockatable cameras. Perhaps we could also have a sliding section to the body which opens to expose the lens and viewfinder and make the camera large enough to handle, like on those Olympus film compacts. I am sure that all the necessary technology and design ideas exist and have already been used in isolation. It just needs putting together.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
