Four-thirds?

In article otjJc.197$SD3.124@okepread06,
"Skip M" wrote:

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
Anybody know if this movement is still alive? Any products on the
horizon?
Thanks in advance.

Nothing past Oly's foray. No one seems to be jumping in after them.

Gee, before there actually were any cameras in that format, it sounded like
the Charge of the Light Brigade, with Fuji, Kodak and, I thought, Pentax,
poised to forge ahead.

Kodak makes the sensor. I'd be surprised if they came out with a camera,
frankly, given their current struggles staying afloat.

Olympus is introducing more lenses (and they did publish a roadmap for
more, at least one of the roadmap list has been announced, the 150mm
f/2). Rumor has a more budget-level body coming out later this year.
(We all know what rumors are worth.)

Sigma has announced it will be offering lenses in 4/3 mount (despite the
Predd-thing, they aren't all bad lenses).

Fuji's part of the 4/3 consortium...no telling what they'll do. They've
marched to their own band for a very long time; not huge consumer
mindshare, but they make some good kit.

Pentax? Who can say; they've made more than one mistake in the digital
market, such as the high-end dSLR that shared a sensor with the Contax N.
Not that they ever shipped it (and the N has been a less than stellar
performer, as near as anyone can tell).

Takes a while to push out a new design; they may all be waiting to see
of Olympus is going to do OK. Sort of like penguins at the edge of an
iceflow...waiting to see who will fall in first and in doing so,
checking for leopard seals.

From: Steve Hix NVALID

they may all be waiting to see of Olympus is going to do
OK. Sort of like penguins at the edge of an iceflow.

I was thinking lemmings at the edge of a cliff ... hard to see how this format
will gain much market share ...

Lourens Smak wrote:

Look around a bit on the web; many people who switched from 10D to E-1
are extremely happy with that. Here's a link to help you:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=9470254
(check the entire thread; pretty interesting)

Good comments. The particular implementation of the 4/3 concept that
Olympus has delivered is a very good one. If Olympus continues to
support it, it shouldn't matter to current owners what happens in the
rest of the industry.

If later, everyone is going with full frame 12mp cameras, and no-one
else takes up the 4/3 concept for its compactness and ease of use, then
fine, people can sell their E1s and move on. No great loss, though,
they've been shooting with a great camera for a few years.

Gary Eickmeier

I was thinking lemmings at the edge of a cliff ... hard to see how this
format
will gain much market share ...

If you tried the camera you might understand why users are in love with the
system. (Myself included.)

In article ,
says...
I believe it will be the APS of digital. Why bother with a smaller sensor
with limited lens selection when you can get a sub-frame digital from Nikon
or Canon that's better, cheaper, and has a much larger lens selection?

The main problem with your rant is that it is the E-1 that is better,
and cheaper. (cheaper when looking at an entire outfit). Personally I
think the sensor-size/image-quality link isn't there. There are some
full-frame camera's that suck, like the Contax N1 and the hit-or-miss
shooting Kodak 14n.

The Oly E-1 is a decent dSLR, but it isn't any better than the
competition. When you take the camera as a whole, it performs well, but
its limitations are quite apparent. If you like a niche product, it's
for you, because the 4/3 format is going nowhere fast.

In article ,
says...
If you tried the camera you might understand why users are in love with the
system. (Myself included.)

Like I said, it's a great niche product. It works well. However, it
really isn't any lighter, the lens selection is limited and the noise,
resolution and feature set of the camera doesn't beat the competition.

If you like the camera, I doubt you like the 4/3 format aspect. You
probably like the environmental seals, the performance of a decent dSLR
and aren't bothered by the limited lens selection. But the fact
remains, whether you like the camera or not, the 4/3 format is a dead
end technology wise.

hard to see how this format will gain much market share ...

From: "Steven Wandy"

If you tried the camera you might understand why users are in love with the
system. (Myself included.)

I'm sure it's a nice system, but the real question is whether or not enough
people will buy it to make it economically feasible for the partners to keep
supporting it with new lenses and bodies.

Anyone know what the sales figures are for 4/3 systems? Nikon recently
announced they are ramping up production on the D70 to 80,000 units per month,
almost a million a year. This is almost a billion dollars per year in gross
sales. What is the 4/3 volume, 80,000 per year? Canon probably sells as many
or more dRebels and 10D's as Nikon does D70's. All this money leads to more
research and development and new, better products down the road.

4/3 has two main problems to overcome ... first, so many people interested in
this level of photography already have lenses for Nikon or Canon or other 35 mm
systems that will fit dSLR bodies. I've got EF lenses from 17 mm to a 500 f/4
L for example, so a Canon dSLR makes a lot more sense than switching to 4/3.

Second, they are locked in to a small APS sized sensor, no matter if larger
sensors become economical in a few years. Sure it's competitive with the 6
Mpix dSLR sensors now but how long before Canon brings out an 8 Mpix sensor
(I'm using the Mark II right now ... if they could get that sensor in a 10D
class body it would be a real sales winner) and in 3-5 years who's to say that
10-12 Mpix models will be more affordable than the 1Ds is now? This is the
fatal flaw of 4/3 and it's the same fight as earlier between APS and 35 mm,
which APS lost so badly.

Bill

"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article pckJc.81668$%_6.77668@attbi_s01, "Bouser"
wrote:

I believe it will be the APS of digital. Why bother with a smaller
sensor
with limited lens selection when you can get a sub-frame digital from
Nikon
or Canon that's better, cheaper, and has a much larger lens selection?

The main problem with your rant is that it is the E-1 that is better,
and cheaper. (cheaper when looking at an entire outfit). Personally I
think the sensor-size/image-quality link isn't there. There are some
full-frame camera's that suck, like the Contax N1 and the hit-or-miss
shooting Kodak 14n.

I just priced the E-1 against a Canon, Nikon, and Fuji DSLR, and at B&H it's
more expensive. There's five lenses listed, as well. Compare that to the
selection for the competition and it pales in comparison. Don't get me
wrong, it's a nice rig, but I can't see where it's competitive. Please
explain how it's better. The reviews I've read don't agree.


I
dont' see the point, especially considering the price. A 5MP DSLR with a
smaller sensor than the 10D but more expensive? Why?

Look around a bit on the web; many people who switched from 10D to E-1
are extremely happy with that. Here's a link to help you:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=9470254
(check the entire thread; pretty interesting)

I read the thread, and then read the review, where they find the camera OK,
but nothing great. The reviewer noted higher noise levels above ISO 800 than
the compeition, AF speeds about the same, maybe a little slower, and you
need to shoot RAW to really get the most out of it. The sample images showed
an amazing case of the jaggies, and less resolution than the competition (a
10D). Sorry, I can't see where this camera offers anything to justify it's
high price, and neither did the reviewer, who damned it with faint praise,
and awarded it the "recommended" rating, compared to the "highly
recommended" rating for two competitors (the 10D and D70). Why spend more
for less?


Lourens

In article , Bill Hilton
wrote:

4/3 has two main problems to overcome ... first, so many people interested in
this level of photography already have lenses for Nikon or Canon or other 35
mm
systems that will fit dSLR bodies. I've got EF lenses from 17 mm to a 500 f/4
L for example, so a Canon dSLR makes a lot more sense than switching to 4/3.

Second, they are locked in to a small APS sized sensor, no matter if larger
sensors become economical in a few years. Sure it's competitive with the 6
Mpix dSLR sensors now but how long before Canon brings out an 8 Mpix sensor
(I'm using the Mark II right now ... if they could get that sensor in a 10D
class body it would be a real sales winner) and in 3-5 years who's to say that
10-12 Mpix models will be more affordable than the 1Ds is now? This is the
fatal flaw of 4/3 and it's the same fight as earlier between APS and 35 mm,
which APS lost so badly.

the main problem for me, is the camera is essentially the same size as
the rebel/d70/*ist.

since the sensor is smaller, give me a camera that is *noticably*
smaller, not the same size. if the camera is essentially the same size,
then i want a bigger and better sensor. plus, there are a LOT of
nikon/canon/pentax lenses around, new and used.

"Bouser" wrote in message
news:IaEJc.82648$JR4.80674@attbi_s54...

"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article pckJc.81668$%_6.77668@attbi_s01, "Bouser"
wrote:

I believe it will be the APS of digital. Why bother with a smaller
sensor
with limited lens selection when you can get a sub-frame digital from
Nikon
or Canon that's better, cheaper, and has a much larger lens selection?

The main problem with your rant is that it is the E-1 that is better,
and cheaper. (cheaper when looking at an entire outfit). Personally I
think the sensor-size/image-quality link isn't there. There are some
full-frame camera's that suck, like the Contax N1 and the hit-or-miss
shooting Kodak 14n.

I just priced the E-1 against a Canon, Nikon, and Fuji DSLR, and at B&H
it's
more expensive. There's five lenses listed, as well. Compare that to the
selection for the competition and it pales in comparison. Don't get me
wrong, it's a nice rig, but I can't see where it's competitive. Please
explain how it's better. The reviews I've read don't agree.


I
dont' see the point, especially considering the price. A 5MP DSLR with
a
smaller sensor than the 10D but more expensive? Why?

Look around a bit on the web; many people who switched from 10D to E-1
are extremely happy with that. Here's a link to help you:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=9470254
(check the entire thread; pretty interesting)

I read the thread, and then read the review, where they find the camera
OK,
but nothing great. The reviewer noted higher noise levels above ISO 800
than
the compeition, AF speeds about the same, maybe a little slower, and you
need to shoot RAW to really get the most out of it. The sample images
showed
an amazing case of the jaggies, and less resolution than the competition
(a
10D). Sorry, I can't see where this camera offers anything to justify it's
high price, and neither did the reviewer, who damned it with faint praise,
and awarded it the "recommended" rating, compared to the "highly
recommended" rating for two competitors (the 10D and D70). Why spend more
for less?


I'm glad you said that about the sample images, I was afraid it was just me.
I looked at some of the images posted by one of the participants in the
forum, and thought they were marginally better than similar images I've
taken with my D30, not up to what my wife's 10D is capable.
I find it interesting that the impressions that the users have is so
different from the reviewer's.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com