This is what happens when you have no flagship cameras

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:01:57 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:53:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
: By all rights, 4/3rds should have gotten this lens. They sell WAY
: more of them than Sony DSLRs. But the 4/3rds/micro 4/3rds consortium
: have no flagship cameras, only entry-level and enthusiast cameras, no
: semi-pro or pro models unless you include the Olympus E-5 which will
: not sell in large numbers. It's time for a high-end micro 4/3rds
: camera. No, I don't mean plastic-bodied Panasonics that cost $1600
: with a lens.
:
: http://dpreview.com/news/1010/10102805tokina1116mm.asp
:
:
: The Tokina lens is physically too large for Micro Four Thirds. The
: focal length range is already covered by Panasonic and Olympus.
:
: As for "a high-end micro 4/3rds camera", just wait until Canon and
: Nikon reveal their mirrorless ranges. ;-)

What will be the aspect ratio of the Canon and Nikon entries, 4:3 or 3:2? Or
something else? (Old Hasselblads and Rolleis were 1:1.) And how did aspect
ratio come to dominate a discussion that is fundamentally about resolution and
viewfinder type?

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
writes
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:01:57 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:53:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
: By all rights, 4/3rds should have gotten this lens. They sell WAY
: more of them than Sony DSLRs. But the 4/3rds/micro 4/3rds consortium
: have no flagship cameras, only entry-level and enthusiast cameras, no
: semi-pro or pro models unless you include the Olympus E-5 which will
: not sell in large numbers. It's time for a high-end micro 4/3rds
: camera. No, I don't mean plastic-bodied Panasonics that cost $1600
: with a lens.
:
: http://dpreview.com/news/1010/10102805tokina1116mm.asp
:
:
: The Tokina lens is physically too large for Micro Four Thirds. The
: focal length range is already covered by Panasonic and Olympus.
:
: As for "a high-end micro 4/3rds camera", just wait until Canon and
: Nikon reveal their mirrorless ranges. ;-)

What will be the aspect ratio of the Canon and Nikon entries, 4:3 or 3:2? Or
something else? (Old Hasselblads and Rolleis were 1:1.) And how did aspect
ratio come to dominate a discussion that is fundamentally about resolution and
viewfinder type?

4/3, the format, relates to a dimension, not the 4:3 aspect ratio. There
are many 4:3 aspect sensors and cameras which are not 4/3 or m4/3
devices.

When Olympus launched the 4/3 format they suggested that future sensors
may have a different aspect ratio, however the diagonal would remain
compatible with 4/3 lenses - ie. fixed at 22.5mm (four thirds of the
diagonal of the image area on a one inch diameter vidicon tube).
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)