Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough

Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , Bruce says...

Your volume calculations are of course designed to mislead because the
EOS 450D has a grip whereas the E420 does not.

These are based on data published on dpreview and are accurate.



There are lies, damn lies, and "accurate" data.

Data can be used to inform, or mislead. You are using it to mislead.

Face it, you cannot adequately describe the size of a complex curved
shape such as a DSLR body by mere length, depth and height. I repeat,
the Canon "data" includes measuring a substantial hand grip that the
Olympus E4 20 simply doesn't have, so it is completely misleading.

But you knew that. Indeed, your intention throughout this discussion
has been to mislead people with unrepresentative data.

In the end, what matters is not your personal obsession with Olympus, or
my personal obsession with honesty and objectivity, and with your
apparent lack of either. The only thing that matters is the choice that
buyers make. And it is clear that only a vanishingly small number of
buyers choose Olympus over the only very slightly larger competition.

So when weighed against the significantly better image quality that
APS-C DSLRs can produce, we can conclude that the very slightly smaller
physical size of Olympus DSLRs is not a significant selling point.

Alfred Molon wrote:

For the overwhelming majority of people the image quality obtainable by
a 4/3 sensor (or even smaller) is more than sufficient. The number of
people who have more stringent image quality requirement is very small.


For the overwhelming majority of people the image quality obtainable by
a P&S sensor is more than sufficient. The number of people who have more
stringent image quality requirement is very small, and the huge majority
of those people choose DSLRs with APS-C and larger sensors.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, only a vanishingly small number of them
choose Four Thirds.

In article , Bruce says...

There are lies, damn lies, and "accurate" data.

Data can be used to inform, or mislead. You are using it to mislead.

Face it, you cannot adequately describe the size of a complex curved
shape such as a DSLR body by mere length, depth and height. I repeat,
the Canon "data" includes measuring a substantial hand grip that the
Olympus E4 20 simply doesn't have, so it is completely misleading.

But you knew that. Indeed, your intention throughout this discussion
has been to mislead people with unrepresentative data.

In the end, what matters is not your personal obsession with Olympus, or
my personal obsession with honesty and objectivity, and with your
apparent lack of either. The only thing that matters is the choice that
buyers make. And it is clear that only a vanishingly small number of
buyers choose Olympus over the only very slightly larger competition.

So when weighed against the significantly better image quality that
APS-C DSLRs can produce, we can conclude that the very slightly smaller
physical size of Olympus DSLRs is not a significant selling point.

Bruce, your message is full of personal attacks - I'm killfiling you.
It's pointless to continue to discuss with you.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Chris Malcolm says...

Am I right in assuming that with no filter attached there is no bad
unrecoverable vignetting problem? If so, you might like to look into
the possibilities of using a wider polarising filter with a step up
conversion ring.

It's not as bad without polariser filter, so the step-up ring would be
an option. But I already spent 100 Euro on this high quality polariser
filter, and I'm not too enthusiastic forking out another 100-200 Euro
for a larger high quality polariser filter + the step up ring.

It's also not clear why Sony chose to "standardise" around 62mm [lens
diameter] for its line of Alpha DSLRs considering that they chose 67mm
as lens diameter for their Sony R1. Needless to say, the R1 has far less
vignetting than the A350.

The camera with the best vignetting performance I have used so far is
the Olympus 8080, which has a 8.8x6.6mm sensor combined with a huge 58mm
lens. Excellent lens and *no vignetting* at all.

Compare that with the 22mm sensor of the A350 and the 62mm lens
diameter. Why on earth do manufacturers design such small lenses when
the sensor is so big?

I had a look at the Pentax K20D last year. Huge body (relatively), but
then it had a tiny little lens on it. How brainless can designers be to
put such a small lens on an APS-C DSLR. Lenses should have a diameter of
100mm or more, if you want to get the same vignetting performance as the
one of the Olympus 8080.

By the way, even if you correct the vignetting in post-processing, you
still have a loss of 1-3 stops in the corners = more noise, less
dynamic range.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Bruce says...
snip to the crux of the matter
So when weighed against the significantly better image quality that
APS-C DSLRs can produce, we can conclude that the very slightly smaller
physical size of Olympus DSLRs is not a significant selling point.

Bruce, your message is full of personal attacks - I'm killfiling you.
It's pointless to continue to discuss with you.

You just can't face it when your argument is shredded by pointing out
the facts don't support your assertions.
If you want to see the ultimate shredding of the silly
Olympus/FourThirds "telecentricity" requirement and it's effect on lens
bulk, just look at the Leica M8.
The M8 has "two strikes" against it (shorter register distance and
larger sensor) but can still produce excellent images with much smaller
lenses than any of the FourThirds offerings to date and fairly a small
camera body to boot.

Face it Alfred, it's you who just can't "face the the music".
Especially when it isn't playing your tune.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:26:26 -0400, Michael Benveniste
wrote:

snip


shoot.

Yeah, I had a Minolta 110 camera. I remember foolishly buying some slide
film for it, getting back slides with the tiny positive in a big square
of cardboard.

About once a year, I shoot a roll with my Pentax 110 SLR just for fun.
I do have to send it out by mail for processing, though.

I've got the Pentax 110 SLR, the Minolta SLR and the Rollei A110. I
shoot several rolls a year, as you say, just for fun, and for the
challenge of getting something useful from so small a negative and
such restricted film choices. The local place that develops my 35 mm.
film will still develop the film for me, but they can't print it, so I
scan the negatives and "print" them in Photoshop Elements. I have a
sentimental attachment to 110s, as the first camera I ever bought for
myself was a Kodak Ektra II 110.

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , SMS says...

But the Micro 4:3 cameras suffer from many of the drawbacks of P&S
cameras,

How would you know, given that there is just one model on the market
right now.

It's inherent to the design.

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , SMS says...

4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.

It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a large
sensor and excellent lenses (due to the telecentric design).

Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge and
heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the cube
of the (linear) sensor size.

First you say people want smaller cameras with larger sensors, then you
say that smaller sensors allow smaller cameras. You're very confused.

Mark Thomas wrote:

For the overwhelming majority of people the image quality obtainable
by a P&S sensor is more than sufficient. The number of people who have
more
stringent image quality requirement is very small, and the huge majority
of those people choose DSLRs with APS-C and larger sensors.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, only a vanishingly small number of them
choose Four Thirds.

Bruce, you are offering these precise, unambiguous, undebatable opinions
with great gusto - what is your background? How is it that you speak
for the majority? How is it that you have extensively used all these
cameras and know so much about their limitations? I don't suppose you
are a camera store salesperson, by chance?

Those two statements are not opinions, they are supported by the market
data.

The overwhelmingly majority of people choose P&S cameras and are
satisfied with the image quality (though often dissatisfied with other
aspects of the P&S camera).

Those wanting higher image quality choose a D-SLR, and only a tiny
percentage choose Olympus, and it's because of 4:3, either directly or
indirectly, that they don't even consider Olympus.

SMS wrote in
:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , SMS says...

4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS
film.

It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a
large sensor and excellent lenses (due to the telecentric design).

Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge
and heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the
cube of the (linear) sensor size.

First you say people want smaller cameras with larger sensors, then
you say that smaller sensors allow smaller cameras. You're very
confused.

Small DSLRs are limited in one sense, they are not comfortable to hold with
larger lenses. We need compact interchangeable lens cameras (like
Olympus's proposed u4/3rds models) but have to work within their
constraints, which means menu-driven commands and small lenses.