Olympus obituary? Good article

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Olympus obituary? Good
article;
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:23:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:


Some of it is pure speculation, but it makes some good points. The
starkest point in the whole thing is the contrast between the small
4/3rds sensor, and where everyone else is headed, 35mm sensor sizes.

http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?op...539&Item id=1


"where everyone else is headed"

If they haded there but not firmly in one camp,
then the larger 4/3 might be just where they are.
It looks like a good crossover to me.
Magnesium body? Legendary fit? And waterproof too?
If I were in the DSLR market, I'd give that format
serious consideration.

"where everyone else is headed"

But most people still prefer their tiny digicam
format. 4/3 might be just the right thing.
....best of both worlds.

"where everyone else is headed"

If tiny-sensor is topped out, resolution-wise, I wonder
about that old, old quality standard; optical quality.
The other thing that made '60s & '70s Nikon king
was body quality and duribility, something I guess
Olympus takes more seriously than anybody.
Nobody talks about those any more.
I wonder why? The throw-away world?


Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

Advantages

* The smaller sensor size makes possible smaller and lighter
camera bodies and lenses. In particular, the Four-Thirds system
allows for the development of impressive f/2.0 zoom lenses, which
would be prohibitively heavy, expensive, and difficult to design
for larger sensor formats.
* Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the
sensor is traveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in
brighter corners, and most importantly improved off-center
resolution, particularly on wide angle lenses.
* Because the flange focal distance is significantly shorter
than most mounts (such as Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon F and Pentax
K), lenses for many other SLR types, including the old Olympus OM
System, can be fitted to Four Thirds cameras with simple
mechanical adapter rings. (Such mechanical adapter rings
typically require manual setting of focus and aperture). In many
cases this produces excellent results, especially with longer
focal-length lenses and lenses at smaller apertures. A series of
tests by John Foster (Using OM legacy lenses on E1 body) provides
a demonstration.
* A smaller sensor makes it easier to achieve a deeper
depth-of-field, when needed, reducing the risk of photos that are
out of focus.

Crash! wrote:

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

Advantages

* The smaller sensor size makes possible smaller and lighter
camera bodies and lenses. In particular, the Four-Thirds system
allows for the development of impressive f/2.0 zoom lenses, which
would be prohibitively heavy, expensive, and difficult to design
for larger sensor formats.

Whereas a moderate f/4 zoom does the same thing for 35mm.
Same DOF, and since 35mm can raise their ISO by 2 stops, given
the same sensor technology, same light gathering capability.

Unfortunately, there are impressive f/2.8 zooms for 35mm,
which means that 4/3rds would need f/1.4 zooms to compete.


* Telecentric optical path means that light hitting the
sensor is traveling perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in
brighter corners, and most importantly improved off-center
resolution, particularly on wide angle lenses.

Nice marketing claim. Ever hear of retrofocus? Same thing,
used by every 35mm wide angle lens.

* Because the flange focal distance is significantly shorter
than most mounts (such as Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon F and Pentax
K), lenses for many other SLR types, including the old Olympus OM
System, can be fitted to Four Thirds cameras with simple
mechanical adapter rings. (Such mechanical adapter rings
typically require manual setting of focus and aperture). In many
cases this produces excellent results, especially with longer
focal-length lenses and lenses at smaller apertures. A series of
tests by John Foster (Using OM legacy lenses on E1 body) provides
a demonstration.

Mechanical adapters ... yes. Nice theory. Unfortunately,
many lenses nowadays set their aperture and close their
aperture with electronic signals.

* A smaller sensor makes it easier to achieve a deeper
depth-of-field, when needed, reducing the risk of photos that are
out of focus.

A larger sensor just needs to stop down more, the lost light
is exactly counterbalanced by it's larger size.

-Wolfgang