Micro 4/3 system - when the first camera will come out?

dj_nme wrote:

Where did I write "dark ages" = bad?
Leaf shutter lenses have been around since virtually the beginning of
photography in the 19th century, since before the focal plane shutter
was even invented.
They aren't a high-tech recent innovation.

Actually the I think the focal plane shutter (Farmer 1882)
is a little older than the between lens leaf shutter
(Beauchamp, Dallmeyer 1887).

Peter.
--

"Peter Irwin" wrote:
dj_nme wrote:

Where did I write "dark ages" = bad?
Leaf shutter lenses have been around since virtually the beginning of
photography in the 19th century, since before the focal plane shutter
was even invented.
They aren't a high-tech recent innovation.

Actually the I think the focal plane shutter (Farmer 1882)
is a little older than the between lens leaf shutter
(Beauchamp, Dallmeyer 1887).

Oops. Almost as bad as Ms. Palin on "In god we trust" in the pledge: "If it
was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll
fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

The pledge was written in 1892, and "In god we trust" was added in 1954.

"Bellamy's original Pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the
Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article 48bbe621$0$7635$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, dj_nme says...

I suspect that if Mu4/3 takes off to any extent that Olympus and
Panasonic may just let the full-sized FourThirds fade away.

The sensor size is the same for both.
--

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article 48bbe621$0$7635$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, dj_nme says...

I suspect that if Mu4/3 takes off to any extent that Olympus and
Panasonic may just let the full-sized FourThirds fade away.

The sensor size is the same for both.

Undeniably so.
Except: Mu4/3 will do away with most of the optical and mechanical
elements in the viewfinder, should thus be cheaper to make and hence be
more profitable for Oly and Pana.
That would make it more likely (IMHO) that the more mechanically
complicated and thus more expensive to manufacture FourThirds DSLR
cameras to be put on the back-burner.

dj_nme wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
dj_nme wrote:

Leaf-shutter lenses are even more "dark ages" than focal-plane shutters.
What do you think the old large-format camera lenses have built into
them?
The design dates back to the late 19th century.

Are you kidding? Leaf shutters are magnificent and induce much less
vibration than a mechanical shutter while allowing true sync speeds up
to the leaf shutter speed (1/500 typically and 1/1000 in a few lenses)

Where did I write "dark ages" = bad?

Then find a better simile. Such language is typically used to
illustrate something as not valuable.

Leaf shutter lenses have been around since virtually the beginning of
photography in the 19th century, since before the focal plane shutter
was even invented.
They aren't a high-tech recent innovation.

Where did I say they were?

The reason they are rare in 35mm photography is simply to reduce the
cost of lenses. The compromise in the early years of this was that the
sync speeds were rather low. (1/60, possibly less...) As of my last
35mm film body, the FP shutter is 1/300 sync which is very good.

Still, even today, leaf shutters are being made for ground-up-design SLR
MF cameras, including the H digital system from Hasselblad. Studio
photographers demand them and studio lights are certainly not equipped
with "high speed flash".


Considering the market that Olympus is going after, it's far more
likely that they'll go with either their current shutter technology
(already developed = no extra R&D costs) or use electronic shuttering
and have no mechanical shutter at all.

Where everyone will still be limited by focal-plane
shutter distortions of anything that moves faster than the shutter,
slow
flash-sync, no true high-speed photography, annoying audible noise,
shortened
life-span of mechanical devices, et.al.

You are wrong and obviously have no knowledge of high-speed flash
synch with a modern (d)SLR camera.
All DSLR cameras can flash synch up to their maximum shutter speed
with the correct flash unit attached.
In fact, some of the later film SLR cameras could also high-speed
synch using the same technology.

Ahem. So called high speed sync is good for some situations such as
outdoor and trying to use flash with a wide aperture. But the fact is
that as the shutter speed goes up, the amount of available flash power
goes down. And drastically. For example my 56 meter GN flash becomes
a 3 meter GN flash at 1/12,000 (Maxxum 9). In high speed sync, a lot
of flash energy is wasted: a) because the strobe starts pulsing
before the shutter starts opening and b) because as the shutter speed
increases, more and more of the flash energy is wasted on a partially
close shutter.

If ambient light is enough to wash-out the effects of your high speed
sync flash, then I would humbly suggest that a flash isn't required in
the first place in that situation.
Just rely on the fast shutter speed to freeze the action.

You don't get it. It's a DOF issue where fill flash is needed but where
the large aperture will demand a high shutter speed in the first place
even at very low ISO settings.

In the end, for high speed phtography, what is needed is a _brief_
flash of light on the subject while the shutter is wide open. Hence,
1/10,000 can be achieved with a 1/200 (or 1/60 for that matter)
shutter speed)

By the way, "later" ? I had Minolta high speed sync flashes in 1994
and they were not "new".

This was with the Minolta Dynax/Maxxum series of SLR cameras, wasn't it?
To me, that is one of the "later" SLR camera systems.

Surely. rolls eyes

Considering that it appears that Mu4/3 is aimed at a cheaper market
segment than the current FourThirds DSLR cameras, it is highly
unlikely that they will go down the path of leaf-shutter lenses.
Have a look at some of the historic precedents for leaf-shutter
lenses (definitely not from the cheap end of the market), then come
back and tell me with a straight face that you truly believe that
Mu4/3 will use this technology.
This is (of course) without any really solid announcement from
Olympus as to what sort of camera design the first Mu4/3 cameras will
actually be.

That's easy: a noise bounded system with limited future growth.

That really depends on whether Olympus puts Mu4/3 cameras out as a "high
end" or a "low end" system.
If it's high-end, then I'd expect development money to go into both
better sensor and processing technology to prevent and/or fix up the
noise problem.

Yeah. really rolls eyes All things being equal (such as advancement
in technology for all participants over time) the smaller sensor of the
4/3 system can never have the noise performance on pixels/image basis as
a full frame sensor.

That's just physics.

--
-- 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.