Olympus admits a try at "pro" would gut their 4/3rds system

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:37:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: I think that pretty much sums up what it would cost Olympus if they
: made a go for the professional market in meaningful way. The end of
: 4/3rds as a viable sensor format. They have to go with something like
: the 35mm (kudos for Olympus for asking "what does FF mean anyway?"
: earlier in the interview) sensor size, no matter what format. I would
: personally like to see a 4/3rds proportioned sensor with a diagonal of
: 40mm as a pro camera. I still dislike 3:2 as a format.

You're swimming against a very swift current. Remember that the the 4:3 aspect
ratio (common in early digital cameras) came to the industry from the
television set, by way of the VGA computer screen. Now even TV sets no longer
use 4:3, and it has almost disappeared from computer screens as well.

That said, the history of 3:2 is pretty hard to fathom. It's the ratio
traditionally used in 35mm film cameras, so it's arguably the "right" ratio
for a full-frame digital. But in most of the film era, 3:2 was rarely used for
prints. (In the U.S. the picture postcard is the only common example.) And
though it's been a long time, my recollection is that even slide masks
generally shorted the long dimension. Given all this, the contemporary
reversion to 3:2 is a bit hard to explain. But it's no less real, and I'd be
very surprised if 4:3 makes a comeback in any professional camera product line
in the foreseeable future.

As for Olympus, minaturization has been their schtick for a long time. Their
early film SLRs were a third smaller than those of the competition. Many
serious photographers, even professionals, liked their smaller, lighter
offerings, and they did pretty well. But Olympus didn't have the option of
changing the film size. (What would they have gone to? 110?) So their images
had to be the same size as those of Nikon or Canon (or Exacta or Miranda or
Asahi Pentax or Contaflex or ...). The unstandardized world of digital sensors
freed them from that restriction, for better or for worse.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote:

That said, the history of 3:2 is pretty hard to fathom. It's the ratio
traditionally used in 35mm film cameras, so it's arguably the "right"
ratio
for a full-frame digital. But in most of the film era, 3:2 was rarely used
for
prints. (In the U.S. the picture postcard is the only common example.)

But with the advent of European/Japanese standard paper sizes, it's become
much more reasonable: at super A3, printing 12x18 on a 13x19 paper leaves
nice 1/2" borders all around, and 7 x 10.5 printed on A4 does roughly the
same (16mm border). And "2L" in Japan is 5x7, which allows a 4x6 print with
a 1/2" border. Leaving a nice border is, I find, a lot classier than
borderless (which I used to do all the time to show off as much detail as
possible; I'm a bit less nuts about that nowadays); you can even put a
border of some sort around the image and still retain even borders.

Which is why it's a shame that the new Fuji folding camera is 6x7 and not
6x9. Sigh.

And
though it's been a long time, my recollection is that even slide masks
generally shorted the long dimension.

The slide masks at hand are 34x23, which is only barely short (0.5mm) on the
long direction at all, and most of the slides here aren't centered correctly
with the long axis shifted enough to expose the black film border enough to
result in a longer, not squatter, format of the image actuall projected.

Given all this, the contemporary
reversion to 3:2 is a bit hard to explain. But it's no less real, and I'd
be
very surprised if 4:3 makes a comeback in any professional camera product
line
in the foreseeable future.

Well, there's the Fuji 6x7 folder. (Which I really reall want, but since my
film scanner's dead, the camera + new Nikon 9000 would be around US$5,000;
an amount I can't really justify for a fixed lens camera in a focal length I
don't really like (I prefer 65mm rather than 80mm on 6x7). I should just
shut up and buy a used GW690III (90mm on 6x9) and the 43mm lens for my 6x7
camera and the US$3000 Nikon 9000. A mere US$5,000 for a camera system that
wouldn't be significantly better than the 5DIIg. Or maybe that's a frown.

As for Olympus, minaturization has been their schtick for a long time.
Their
early film SLRs were a third smaller than those of the competition.

Yes. The OM series was real nice. I owned two OM-1n cameras over the years.
Although they were not very rugged. I got a tour of the Olympus factory here
in Japan in '79, and one of their engineers offered to check mine out for
me. He reported that there were oxidation problems in the internal
mechanisms. Oops. But the camera was nice enough that I just replaced it a
few years later.

Many
serious photographers, even professionals, liked their smaller, lighter
offerings, and they did pretty well. But Olympus didn't have the option of
changing the film size. (What would they have gone to? 110?)

How short and fleeting is the memory of man: you've forgotten the Pen and
Pen F cameras. Lovely half-frame 35mm cameras.

So their images
had to be the same size as those of Nikon or Canon (or Exacta or Miranda
or
Asahi Pentax or Contaflex or ...). The unstandardized world of digital
sensors
freed them from that restriction, for better or for worse.

No. Again, you've forgotten their half-frame history.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

That said, the history of 3:2 is pretty hard to fathom. It's the ratio
traditionally used in 35mm film cameras, so it's arguably the "right" ratio
for a full-frame digital. But in most of the film era, 3:2 was rarely used for
prints. (In the U.S. the picture postcard is the only common example.)

4 x 6 prints are the most common sized print and those are exactly 3:2.
prior to that were 3.5 x 5 prints and that's almost 3:2.

And
though it's been a long time, my recollection is that even slide masks
generally shorted the long dimension.

slide masks are slightly smaller than the frame size but retain the
aspect ratio.

Given all this, the contemporary
reversion to 3:2 is a bit hard to explain. But it's no less real, and I'd be
very surprised if 4:3 makes a comeback in any professional camera product line
in the foreseeable future.

As for Olympus, minaturization has been their schtick for a long time. Their
early film SLRs were a third smaller than those of the competition.

perhaps at first, but the pentax mx and nikon fm & fe were basically
the same size as the olympus om series.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:56:08 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

But with the advent of European/Japanese standard paper sizes, it's become
much more reasonable: at super A3, printing 12x18 on a 13x19 paper leaves
nice 1/2" borders all around, and 7 x 10.5 printed on A4 does roughly the
same (16mm border). And "2L" in Japan is 5x7, which allows a 4x6 print with
a 1/2" border. Leaving a nice border is, I find, a lot classier than
borderless (which I used to do all the time to show off as much detail as
possible; I'm a bit less nuts about that nowadays); you can even put a
border of some sort around the image and still retain even borders.

Seems to me the aspect ratio should fit the picture, not the paper.

Wally

Wally

"Wally" wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:56:08 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

But with the advent of European/Japanese standard paper sizes, it's become
much more reasonable: at super A3, printing 12x18 on a 13x19 paper leaves
nice 1/2" borders all around, and 7 x 10.5 printed on A4 does roughly the
same (16mm border). And "2L" in Japan is 5x7, which allows a 4x6 print
with
a 1/2" border. Leaving a nice border is, I find, a lot classier than
borderless (which I used to do all the time to show off as much detail as
possible; I'm a bit less nuts about that nowadays); you can even put a
border of some sort around the image and still retain even borders.

Seems to me the aspect ratio should fit the picture, not the paper.

Yes. But I find that I compose to the viewfinder. When I carry my Rollei
TLR, I look for and get pictures that fly as square compositions. When I
shoot 645 or 6x7, the images usually don't work when cropped to either 2:3
or square. That said, with 2:3, I find a higher percentage of shots that can
be (or need to be) cropped to 4:3 than I find croppable shots with either
4:3 or square, but it's still only a very occassional image.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in
:


"Robert Coe" wrote:

That said, the history of 3:2 is pretty hard to fathom. It's the
ratio traditionally used in 35mm film cameras, so it's arguably the
"right" ratio
for a full-frame digital. But in most of the film era, 3:2 was rarely
used for
prints. (In the U.S. the picture postcard is the only common
example.)

But with the advent of European/Japanese standard paper sizes, it's
become much more reasonable: at super A3, printing 12x18 on a 13x19
paper leaves nice 1/2" borders all around, and 7 x 10.5 printed on A4
does roughly the same (16mm border).

That's nice, but in the professional print world, 4:3 is still a lot closer
to the average picture format than 3:2.

Rich wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in
:

"Robert Coe" wrote:
That said, the history of 3:2 is pretty hard to fathom. It's the
ratio traditionally used in 35mm film cameras, so it's arguably the
"right" ratio
for a full-frame digital. But in most of the film era, 3:2 was rarely
used for
prints. (In the U.S. the picture postcard is the only common
example.)
But with the advent of European/Japanese standard paper sizes, it's
become much more reasonable: at super A3, printing 12x18 on a 13x19
paper leaves nice 1/2" borders all around, and 7 x 10.5 printed on A4
does roughly the same (16mm border).

That's nice, but in the professional print world, 4:3 is still a lot closer
to the average picture format than 3:2.

As if that means anything.

It really doesn't matter what the frame proportions are within a
reasonable range of 1:1 to about 2:1. Photographs are not supposed to
be stuffed into a restrained proportion anymore than a painting is.

--
-- 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.

Robert Coe wrote:
But it's no less real, and I'd be
very surprised if 4:3 makes a comeback in any professional camera product line
in the foreseeable future.

Hasselblad's H series is 645 (film) and most of the digital backs are
4:3 at various actual sensor sizes.

--
-- 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 in
:

Rich wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in
:

"Robert Coe" wrote:
That said, the history of 3:2 is pretty hard to fathom. It's the
ratio traditionally used in 35mm film cameras, so it's arguably the
"right" ratio
for a full-frame digital. But in most of the film era, 3:2 was
rarely used for
prints. (In the U.S. the picture postcard is the only common
example.)
But with the advent of European/Japanese standard paper sizes, it's
become much more reasonable: at super A3, printing 12x18 on a 13x19
paper leaves nice 1/2" borders all around, and 7 x 10.5 printed on
A4 does roughly the same (16mm border).

That's nice, but in the professional print world, 4:3 is still a lot
closer to the average picture format than 3:2.

As if that means anything.

It really doesn't matter what the frame proportions are within a
reasonable range of 1:1 to about 2:1. Photographs are not supposed to
be stuffed into a restrained proportion anymore than a painting is.


Part of the brag of the 1.5 crops over 4/3rds is that it is a bigger frame.
It isn't if you crop it even a little.

Rich wrote:
Alan Browne wrote in
:

Rich wrote:

That's nice, but in the professional print world, 4:3 is still a lot
closer to the average picture format than 3:2.
As if that means anything.

It really doesn't matter what the frame proportions are within a
reasonable range of 1:1 to about 2:1. Photographs are not supposed to
be stuffed into a restrained proportion anymore than a painting is.


Part of the brag of the 1.5 crops over 4/3rds is that it is a bigger frame.
It isn't if you crop it even a little.

You only crop if you need to for whatever end use is needed. So the
counter argument goes that when you need a larger aspect ratio photo,
4/3 wastes more pixels while getting less resolution for the image.

--
-- 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.