Micro 4/3 system - when the first camera will come out?

wrote in message
...
Olympus just recently announced the Micro 4/3 system. I found this is
an interesting development, particularly for those who like to have a
compact DSLR. Imagine an SLR which can fit into your pocket, with the
size of a Canon G9. If Olympus could develop zoom lens like their 25mm
pancake lens, it would be perfect for the DSLR world.

The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.
Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
with 4/3 system?
Does Kodak supplies the 4/3 system camera sensors to Olympus (I
thought Olympus DSLR's sensors were supplied by Matsu****a/Panasonic)
What do Fuji and Sanyo help in promoting the 4/3 system?

Thanks for info and discussion.

You are welcome to all the 4/3rds cameras they make, they just don't measure
up.

A fair bet would be before the recently announced Samsung EVIL
(Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) type camera, which is
intended to be shipped by late 2010.

wrote in message
...
Olympus just recently announced the Micro 4/3 system. I found this is
an interesting development, particularly for those who like to have a
compact DSLR. Imagine an SLR which can fit into your pocket, with the
size of a Canon G9. If Olympus could develop zoom lens like their 25mm
pancake lens, it would be perfect for the DSLR world.

The putative Mu4/3 camera designs exclude an optical TTL viewfinder, due
to the short registration (flange to sensor) distance of 20mm and hence
no space for a reflex mirror.
So Mu4/3 can't (at this stage) be considered for a potential DSLR design
candidate.
More likely to be an EVIL camera or (slightly less likely) a D-RF camera
(similar to the Leica M8).

The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.

It will probably follow the pattern followed by FourThirds:
Olympus puts out a few models, then Panasonic designs a camera around
the Olympus viewfinder design and then Leica re-badges at least one
Panasonic with a red dot logo.

Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
with 4/3 system?
Does Kodak supplies the 4/3 system camera sensors to Olympus (I
thought Olympus DSLR's sensors were supplied by Matsu****a/Panasonic)
What do Fuji and Sanyo help in promoting the 4/3 system?

Thanks for info and discussion.

I suspect that if Mu4/3 takes off to any extent that Olympus and
Panasonic may just let the full-sized FourThirds fade away.
A Mu4/3 camera will obviously be cheaper to produce than a FourThirds
DSLR camera: No moving parts (IE: no flipping reflex mirror) or
penta-prism/mirror in the viewfinder path and presumably no mechanical
shutter either.

hankwilliams wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:54:53 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

A fair bet would be before the recently announced Samsung EVIL
(Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) type camera, which is
intended to be shipped by late 2010.

wrote in message
...
Olympus just recently announced the Micro 4/3 system. I found this is
an interesting development, particularly for those who like to have a
compact DSLR. Imagine an SLR which can fit into your pocket, with the
size of a Canon G9. If Olympus could develop zoom lens like their 25mm
pancake lens, it would be perfect for the DSLR world.
The putative Mu4/3 camera designs exclude an optical TTL viewfinder, due
to the short registration (flange to sensor) distance of 20mm and hence
no space for a reflex mirror.
So Mu4/3 can't (at this stage) be considered for a potential DSLR design
candidate.
More likely to be an EVIL camera or (slightly less likely) a D-RF camera
(similar to the Leica M8).

The Four third system, according to their website was developed by
Kodak and Olympus. It listed Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Fuji,
Sanyo and Sigma as their supporting companies. I can see the Olympus
and Panasonic with their DSLR cameras with 4/3 system. Leica made
lenses for the Panasonic. However, I did not see the role of Fuji,
Kodak, Sanyo and Sigma in this development.
It will probably follow the pattern followed by FourThirds:
Olympus puts out a few models, then Panasonic designs a camera around
the Olympus viewfinder design and then Leica re-badges at least one
Panasonic with a red dot logo.

Will they plan to make a 4/3 system DSLR in the near future?
Does Sigma produce the Olympus' Zuiko lens or produce their Sigma lens
with 4/3 system?
Does Kodak supplies the 4/3 system camera sensors to Olympus (I
thought Olympus DSLR's sensors were supplied by Matsu****a/Panasonic)
What do Fuji and Sanyo help in promoting the 4/3 system?

Thanks for info and discussion.
I suspect that if Mu4/3 takes off to any extent that Olympus and
Panasonic may just let the full-sized FourThirds fade away.
A Mu4/3 camera will obviously be cheaper to produce than a FourThirds
DSLR camera: No moving parts (IE: no flipping reflex mirror) or
penta-prism/mirror in the viewfinder path and presumably no mechanical
shutter either.

Unfortunately, unless they design all their lenses with a built-in leaf-shutter
for high-speed photography and high-speed flash sync, this design is still a
throwback to the dark-ages.

Leaf-shutter lenses are even more "dark ages" than focal-plane shutters.
What do you think the old large-format camera lenses have built into them?
The design dates back to the late 19th century.

Considering the market that Olympus is going after, it's far more likely
that they'll go with either their current shutter technology (already
developed = no extra R&D costs) or use electronic shuttering and have no
mechanical shutter at all.

Where everyone will still be limited by focal-plane
shutter distortions of anything that moves faster than the shutter, slow
flash-sync, no true high-speed photography, annoying audible noise, shortened
life-span of mechanical devices, et.al.

You are wrong and obviously have no knowledge of high-speed flash synch
with a modern (d)SLR camera.
All DSLR cameras can flash synch up to their maximum shutter speed with
the correct flash unit attached.
In fact, some of the later film SLR cameras could also high-speed synch
using the same technology.

I won't buy one unless they are smart enough to get rid of last-century's
archaic focal-plane shutter **** while removing that stupid mirror too.

Otherwise it was an excellent idea. Too bad that they still haven't got it
right.

Considering that it appears that Mu4/3 is aimed at a cheaper market
segment than the current FourThirds DSLR cameras, it is highly unlikely
that they will go down the path of leaf-shutter lenses.
Have a look at some of the historic precedents for leaf-shutter lenses
(definitely not from the cheap end of the market), then come back and
tell me with a straight face that you truly believe that Mu4/3 will use
this technology.
This is (of course) without any really solid announcement from Olympus
as to what sort of camera design the first Mu4/3 cameras will actually be.

All we actually know now is the flange to sensor distance and have some
web-sized pictures of the lens-mount and a wooden lens mock-up available
on the FourThirds website.
Nothing else, all is speculation.

Essentially you are a no-nothing anti-DSLR camera troll who will take
any (no matter how tenuous) chance to bash on a fictional shortcoming.
Welcome to the killfile.

"hankwilliams" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:19:09 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

Essentially you are a no-nothing anti-DSLR camera troll who will take
any (no matter how tenuous) chance to bash on a fictional shortcoming.
Welcome to the killfile.

To the contrary, I know quite a bit more than you do. Your reply reveals
the
depths of your ignorance and lack of any real experience with the
equipment that
you wrote about.

Focal-plane shutter distortions aren't real?

Then study this image.

http://images.wikia.com/chdk/images/...istortions.jpg

Pay particular attention too to the tail-rotor and its corresponding
shadow on
the ground. They are 90 degrees from each other. I guess that's how
reality
looks to you through your focal-plane shutter camera and you are quite
content
with that. I require more precision and less distortion of reality than
that.


I can point out a dozen other helicopter photos where this distortion is not
apparent--choosing one photo where it is does not make the case. The very
fact that tens of thousands of photographers have used slrs to take such
images successfully over the last several decades would clearly indicate
this problem exists more in your head than anywhere else. Certainly, there
would be reasons in scientific studies to avoid focal plane distortion, but
I highly doubt your wants and needs for accurate images approaches anything
like that. I don't know that for sure, though, so do tell us what it is you
need such accuracy for.

I myself have been shooting with slrs since the late 70's, and have never
once had noticeable focal plane shutter distortion. Further, a search of
rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a group that was once comprised of primarily
professional photographers (no longer), and which has been archived for over
a decade, shows zero posts complaining about focal plane shutter distortion,
and only one post that even mentions it.

"hankwilliams" wrote in message
...

There are several things we can tell from your post, the foremost of which
is that you think an awful lot of yourself and very little of others.

On 2008-09-02, bino wrote:
"hankwilliams" wrote in message
...

There are several things we can tell from your post, the foremost of which
is that you think an awful lot of yourself and very little of others.


The first thing I can tell is that it's just another of
VernMichaels's pointless incarnations. Starved of attention he will go
away....

--
savvo orig. invib. man

So, what form do believe that the first Mu4/3 cameras will have?
When do you think they'll the first ones will be released into the
marketplace?

My bet is that it really depends on what sort of photog Olympus is
actually trying to woo into the new system.
If they're trying for a mass-market approach, then the lowest system
cost will be foremost and it'll be something like a smallish P&S with a
big LCD screen on the back, no EVF and a slowish 3x or 4x zoom lens with
other lenses on offer, but not quite yet available.
On the other hand, if it's a more serious photog they're after then it
will be more similar to the current FourThirds system DSLR cameras and
have a good (high resolution) EVF and use a shortened/compact version of
one of their current kit zoom lenses and have other lenses ready to go
at the same time.

Considering the recent Samsung announcement, Olympus had better be
faster in development than with the original FourThirds.
In less than 2 years Mu4/3 may be "dead in the water" if Samsung beats
them to market.
Either system will seem interesting at least until the first test
results from the various review websites are put up on the web and then
we can start with the "I told so".

dj_nme wrote:

Leaf-shutter lenses are even more "dark ages" than focal-plane shutters.
What do you think the old large-format camera lenses have built into them?
The design dates back to the late 19th century.

Are you kidding? Leaf shutters are magnificent and induce much less
vibration than a mechanical shutter while allowing true sync speeds up
to the leaf shutter speed (1/500 typically and 1/1000 in a few lenses)


Considering the market that Olympus is going after, it's far more likely
that they'll go with either their current shutter technology (already
developed = no extra R&D costs) or use electronic shuttering and have no
mechanical shutter at all.

Where everyone will still be limited by focal-plane
shutter distortions of anything that moves faster than the shutter, slow
flash-sync, no true high-speed photography, annoying audible noise,
shortened
life-span of mechanical devices, et.al.

You are wrong and obviously have no knowledge of high-speed flash synch
with a modern (d)SLR camera.
All DSLR cameras can flash synch up to their maximum shutter speed with
the correct flash unit attached.
In fact, some of the later film SLR cameras could also high-speed synch
using the same technology.

Ahem. So called high speed sync is good for some situations such as
outdoor and trying to use flash with a wide aperture. But the fact is
that as the shutter speed goes up, the amount of available flash power
goes down. And drastically. For example my 56 meter GN flash becomes a
3 meter GN flash at 1/12,000 (Maxxum 9). In high speed sync, a lot of
flash energy is wasted: a) because the strobe starts pulsing before the
shutter starts opening and b) because as the shutter speed increases,
more and more of the flash energy is wasted on a partially close shutter.

In the end, for high speed phtography, what is needed is a _brief_ flash
of light on the subject while the shutter is wide open. Hence, 1/10,000
can be achieved with a 1/200 (or 1/60 for that matter) shutter speed)

By the way, "later" ? I had Minolta high speed sync flashes in 1994 and
they were not "new".

Considering that it appears that Mu4/3 is aimed at a cheaper market
segment than the current FourThirds DSLR cameras, it is highly unlikely
that they will go down the path of leaf-shutter lenses.
Have a look at some of the historic precedents for leaf-shutter lenses
(definitely not from the cheap end of the market), then come back and
tell me with a straight face that you truly believe that Mu4/3 will use
this technology.
This is (of course) without any really solid announcement from Olympus
as to what sort of camera design the first Mu4/3 cameras will actually be.

That's easy: a noise bounded system with limited future growth.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
dj_nme wrote:

Leaf-shutter lenses are even more "dark ages" than focal-plane shutters.
What do you think the old large-format camera lenses have built into
them?
The design dates back to the late 19th century.

Are you kidding? Leaf shutters are magnificent and induce much less
vibration than a mechanical shutter while allowing true sync speeds up
to the leaf shutter speed (1/500 typically and 1/1000 in a few lenses)

Where did I write "dark ages" = bad?
Leaf shutter lenses have been around since virtually the beginning of
photography in the 19th century, since before the focal plane shutter
was even invented.
They aren't a high-tech recent innovation.

Considering the market that Olympus is going after, it's far more
likely that they'll go with either their current shutter technology
(already developed = no extra R&D costs) or use electronic shuttering
and have no mechanical shutter at all.

Where everyone will still be limited by focal-plane
shutter distortions of anything that moves faster than the shutter, slow
flash-sync, no true high-speed photography, annoying audible noise,
shortened
life-span of mechanical devices, et.al.

You are wrong and obviously have no knowledge of high-speed flash
synch with a modern (d)SLR camera.
All DSLR cameras can flash synch up to their maximum shutter speed
with the correct flash unit attached.
In fact, some of the later film SLR cameras could also high-speed
synch using the same technology.

Ahem. So called high speed sync is good for some situations such as
outdoor and trying to use flash with a wide aperture. But the fact is
that as the shutter speed goes up, the amount of available flash power
goes down. And drastically. For example my 56 meter GN flash becomes a
3 meter GN flash at 1/12,000 (Maxxum 9). In high speed sync, a lot of
flash energy is wasted: a) because the strobe starts pulsing before the
shutter starts opening and b) because as the shutter speed increases,
more and more of the flash energy is wasted on a partially close shutter.

If ambient light is enough to wash-out the effects of your high speed
sync flash, then I would humbly suggest that a flash isn't required in
the first place in that situation.
Just rely on the fast shutter speed to freeze the action.

In the end, for high speed phtography, what is needed is a _brief_ flash
of light on the subject while the shutter is wide open. Hence, 1/10,000
can be achieved with a 1/200 (or 1/60 for that matter) shutter speed)

By the way, "later" ? I had Minolta high speed sync flashes in 1994 and
they were not "new".

This was with the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum series of SLR cameras, wasn't it?
To me, that is one of the "later" SLR camera systems.

Considering that it appears that Mu4/3 is aimed at a cheaper market
segment than the current FourThirds DSLR cameras, it is highly
unlikely that they will go down the path of leaf-shutter lenses.
Have a look at some of the historic precedents for leaf-shutter lenses
(definitely not from the cheap end of the market), then come back and
tell me with a straight face that you truly believe that Mu4/3 will
use this technology.
This is (of course) without any really solid announcement from Olympus
as to what sort of camera design the first Mu4/3 cameras will actually
be.

That's easy: a noise bounded system with limited future growth.

That really depends on whether Olympus puts Mu4/3 cameras out as a "high
end" or a "low end" system.
If it's high-end, then I'd expect development money to go into both
better sensor and processing technology to prevent and/or fix up the
noise problem.
If it's low-end, then I'd expect (at least the first) Mu4/3 cameras to
essentially have a rehash of the shutter and sensor used in their recent
"live view" FourThirds cameras, with all the problems they currently have.