If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus obituary? Good article
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus obituary? Good article | SMS | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | September 12th 10 08:40 PM |