Olympus / Panasonic announce Micro Four Thirds


Status
Not open for further replies.
Those of us using the E-5xx and E-X would be those who doesn't mind weight and size... not too much weight compared to the other brands...

:bsmilie: so true of me,I don't mind using huge cannons from other brands,but then,handheld shooting with them will be near impossible,so I'll stick to Zuikos :)

anyway,as much as i like small cameras cause they can fit in my pocket or pouch,fact remains is that they're too small for me to use comfortably,but i still love carrying heavier cameras like E-1 and E-3 compared to their smaller relatives,so I believe this format will draw new users who are smaller,just hope that the original 4/3 format if that can be called that,will be retained at the same time
 

That's why I do not understand why C & N users say that there is no gain in size and weight for FT ZD lenses. Look at Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and ZD ED 50-200mm SWD f/2.8-3.5. The difference in price, size and weight is :bigeyes:

Mind you, EF (L or no L) lenses is designed for 35mm frame and is not designed specifically for APS-C size sensor. :confused:
 

Last edited:
There must be some crazy young/old punks working inside the R&D department whereas for canon and nikon you can imagine retired government officials or principals in their R&D.

Being different does comes with being outcast or misunderstood.

I see this like the computer innovators Apple (and Commodore) and dinosaurs IBM (and HP, mainframe manufacturers) back in the 80's. Apple had vision, they saw computers being put into homes, whereas IBM only saw the corporate workplace...one famous quote is "why would anyone want a computer in their home?"

Canon & Nikon are today's dinosaurs...all they see is the potential for more full-frame users. IBM still exists, but look at where Apple is today.
 

My answer to that would be, how do todays camcorders handle autofocus while they are recording? How to P&S cameras refocus while they are recording?

badly. thats why the complexity. the AF is fixed (one focal length fits all), the T & W buttons won't work if its recording. U need to pause it to change the zoom range. i bot a Fuji P&S this mar & my sis has a canon IXUS from 4 yrs ago, they both function the exact same way even yrs apart & the rez of the video is not ur normal TV rez. Ok, i can't speak for all the P&S, but its still a complex thing nevertheless if u want to integrate video function into a still cam.

This is the reason why video cams r still around despite all the advancement in mobile phones & still cams, but i can't deny the fine line between a dedicated video cam & still cam is thinning. Technology improves & challenges overcome. However, i dun see it coming so soon in the uFT. Sure they can integrate a video mode but how does it compare? We'll soon find out this fall. :)
 

badly. thats why the complexity. the AF is fixed (one focal length fits all), the T & W buttons won't work if its recording. U need to pause it to change the zoom range. i bot a Fuji P&S this mar & my sis has a canon IXUS from 4 yrs ago, they both function the exact same way even yrs apart & the rez of the video is not ur normal TV rez. Ok, i can't speak for all the P&S, but its still a complex thing nevertheless if u want to integrate video function into a still cam.

This is the reason why video cams r still around despite all the advancement in mobile phones & still cams, but i can't deny the fine line between a dedicated video cam & still cam is thinning. Technology improves & challenges overcome. However, i dun see it coming so soon in the uFT. Sure they can integrate a video mode but how does it compare? We'll soon find out this fall. :)

My P&S Canon S3 can handle zoom and focus really well during video recording mode; the reason most P&S doesn't allow zoom in video mode is they don't have silent motor; rotor noise from AF and zoom will be picked up by the mic.

FT chips can offer solution around the heat & bandwidth problem; since mFT maybe target towards prosumers :dunno: it's cool to include shallow DOF video; albeit not movie-grade resolution.

Current consumer, and even pro-consumer video-cams cannot offer DOF associated with movies cams. Take the latest CSI series for example, it's shot on 35mm film and then digitize for PP - cost over $1m to film one episode. Then compare it with our local TV drama (even those Taiwan, KH & Korea).

I'm sure Panasonic would love to market mFT under its video cam ange. However, it'll likely to be a strategic, rather than technical decision to not include video mode. There will cause major outcry amongst Sony & Canon, who produces both video cams & sensors. :bsmilie:
 

i was replying to "how do P&S handle AF" which is the last part of the reply. Did i type anything misleading? The mechanism, processing & recording technique used in camcorders r not quite the same. I also noticed my P&S has audio sync issue, same for my sis IXUS. Not sure if this is true for higher end P&S.
 

i was replying to "how do P&S handle AF" which is the last part of the reply. Did i type anything misleading?
my bad, I only noticed the first part of the quote :)
 

I'm not sure, but does the smaller lens mount etc. mean a smaller sensor as well?
Olympus/Panasonic must be confident of advancements in shrinking photosites, and their effects on image quality.

The problem I can envisage is unintentionally cutting off original four thirds format development and fruition by focusing advancements on a format which with all indications is a new standard, just not by name. For me personally, I'm fearful of the four thirds consortium receding into history. The standard is nowhere near maturity, and I had an inkling an EVF or Live view only interchangeable lens camera system was eventually going to pop up.

In my opinion, there seems to be a division between the camera companies- those who will maintain a digital SLR business and those who will succumb to the much more profitable casual point and shoot products. Olympus/Panasonic is bold in delivering Micro Four Thirds, but it comes at time when I personally thought they were finally getting serious in the professional arena with the E-3 and SWD.

Interesting times.
 

I'm not sure, but does the smaller lens mount etc. mean a smaller sensor as well?
Olympus/Panasonic must be confident of advancements in shrinking photosites, and their effects on image quality.

The problem I can envisage is unintentionally cutting off original four thirds format development and fruition by focusing advancements on a format which with all indications is a new standard, just not by name. For me personally, I'm fearful of the four thirds consortium receding into history. The standard is nowhere near maturity, and I had an inkling an EVF or Live view only interchangeable lens camera system was eventually going to pop up.

In my opinion, there seems to be a division between the camera companies- those who will maintain a digital SLR business and those who will succumb to the much more profitable casual point and shoot products. Olympus/Panasonic is bold in delivering Micro Four Thirds, but it comes at time when I personally thought they were finally getting serious in the professional arena with the E-3 and SWD.

Interesting times.

Smaller mount. NOT smaller sensor. It is NOT a new standard. It has the SAME sensor size. :)
 

I'm not sure, but does the smaller lens mount etc. mean a smaller sensor as well?
Olympus/Panasonic must be confident of advancements in shrinking photosites, and their effects on image quality.

The problem I can envisage is unintentionally cutting off original four thirds format development and fruition by focusing advancements on a format which with all indications is a new standard, just not by name. For me personally, I'm fearful of the four thirds consortium receding into history. The standard is nowhere near maturity, and I had an inkling an EVF or Live view only interchangeable lens camera system was eventually going to pop up.

In my opinion, there seems to be a division between the camera companies- those who will maintain a digital SLR business and those who will succumb to the much more profitable casual point and shoot products. Olympus/Panasonic is bold in delivering Micro Four Thirds, but it comes at time when I personally thought they were finally getting serious in the professional arena with the E-3 and SWD.

Interesting times.

It has been interesting for 30 years... quite a lot of technology in SLR photography was originally developed by Olympus... might be good if you have a deeper understanding of what Olympus is... it is not a copier making company in the past... it has always been an optics company...
 

it is not a copier making company in the past... it has always been an optics company...

agree... that y they able to produce amazing lens on it own brand "zuiko"... I am looking forward olympus to develop a new type of lens for 4/3 from their medical scope.

Gosh I couldnt find the link which I saw it last time... arrrggghhhh!!!:angry:
 

might be good if you have a deeper understanding of what Olympus is...

What makes you say that? Just because I have only posted 4 times (this being the fifth) in this particular forum? Does the name Takachiho Seisakusho mean anything to you?

If it's a new lens mount... it's a new standard! An adaptor will be required for use of True Four Thirds lenses.

Moderate... don't make assumptions.
 

If it's a new lens mount... it's a new standard!

Not really, it's like an addition to the standard...like CD-ROM and DVD was to the original music CD standard...with a DVD drive you can read multiple disc formats, and with this new camera you can use both the new style and old style lenses (albeit with an adapter to restore the flange back distance). But like a CD drive that can't play DVD discs on, the older camera can't use the new lenses.
 

More important information on the mFT...

Micro Four-Thirds and Telecentricity by The Online Photographer, 11 Aug 2008

Micro Four-Thirds and Telecentricity

When you go away on a vacation and deliberately stay out of touch with what's going on, you half expect the world to have changed by the time you get back—and sometimes it's nice when it really does. (Sometimes it's not nice at all: war between Russia and Georgia? I didn't see that coming.)

What I mean, of course, is the really encouraging news from Olympus and Panasonic about the new Micro Four Thirds standard. My initial reaction is tempered somewhat by the fact that we haven't seen anything about implementation yet, and implementation with digital devices is crucial. But still, it's exciting.

Some of the Olympus materials about Micro Four-Thirds talk about market share, saturation, opportunity, and so forth, and, doubtless, part of what the two companies are doing is trying to wedge open a new niche with the potential to become a big category. In trying to meld together a point-and-shoot body size with the lens interchangeability and image quality of a DSLR, however, one big question is whether they'd rather the result be more like the one or more like the other. Naturally, what comes dancing in front of my eyes when I read about Micro Four-Thirds are exquisitely constructed deluxe little metal gems like miniaturized Leicas, tough and waterproof and with image stabilization and top-quality lenses, and responsiveness as sharp as a razor; but what might be dancing in front of the designers' eyes could be something completely different—like millions of consumers with full wallets who just want slightly better point-and-shoots. Again, implementation is crucial. But when the products are announced, I hope there will be both consumer and "professional" (premium) options right from the start.

Telecentricity requirement relaxed?
One thing that seems probable is that the Micro Four-Thirds lenses will be very small. Jonathan Guilbault writes to tell me that backpackinglight.com has a very interesting article about Micro Four-Thirds by Rick Dreher, based on original interviews with Olympus reps at Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2008. Unfortunately the article is only available to paid subscribers to the site (you can buy a single article, but only to be mailed to you in hard copy form). However, Jonathan tells me that the article reports that, as part of the new standard, Olympus and Panasonic have decided to relax the strict 100% telecentricity requirement of the full Four-Thirds standard. As you probably know, this part of the standard requires that image-forming light must impinge on the sensor at a perpendicular angle; it's a primary reason why the superb 4/3rds lenses are mostly as large as 35mm lenses (long telephotos excepted). Here's a brief quote from the backpackinglight.com article:

Of great importance, if not well understood, is the relaxation of Four-Thirds' rigid telecentric lens standard. CCD imaging chips used in early digicams need light to hit the chip surface at a perpendicular angle, as their photosites sit in depressions that off-angle light can't reach evenly. This creates havoc that the original Four-Thirds standard addressed by demanding system lenses be perpendicular (telecentric). However, newer NMOS chips new used by Olympus and Panasonic don't suffer fatally from angled light, and advanced in-camera processing can address intensity differences that still occur across the frame.

This allows the Micro Four-Thirds rear lens element to sit closer to the chip which, in turn, allows lenses to be smaller. Thus unleashed, camera and lens designers can now employ classic wide angle lens designs unusable in SLRs, create zooms with rear elements that protrude into the camera body, and shrink many lens parts.

I don't know why this wouldn't be mentioned in the official inaugural publicity about the new Micro Four-Thirds standard. But if it's true, it will be at least as important as the greatly reduced flange distance in allowing dedicated Micro Four-Thirds lenses to be significantly smaller and lighter than 35mm, APS-C, and existing 4/3rds lenses, without sacrificing optical quality.

Wait and watch
How significant is Micro Four-Thirds? Well, I don't know, of course, and I think it's dangerous to guess at this point. I think that potentially it could up-end the entire camera market—which could look very different a year from now as a result. But that one-word qualifier ("potentially") is still important. As robust as it is, the digital-imaging-device market is still subject to extraordinarily complex volatility. Deeper analysis is probably pointless until we see actual products.

I can tell you one thing for certain. I'll be waiting to see what Olympus and Panasonic have cooking before I buy anything new. After pining in public for several years now for just the sort of camera that one of these could turn out to be, it seems the least I should do.
 

What makes you say that? Just because I have only posted 4 times (this being the fifth) in this particular forum? Does the name Takachiho Seisakusho mean anything to you?

If it's a new lens mount... it's a new standard! An adaptor will be required for use of True Four Thirds lenses.

Moderate... don't make assumptions.

No need to be rude. You asked "I'm not sure, but does the smaller lens mount etc. mean a smaller sensor as well?" as if you had not read the information. The information states that the sensor is the same.

As far as picking up a name--anyone can do a web search. ;)
 

I'd like to remind all that unlike some other internet forums, ClubSnap moderators do actively participate in discussions. It may be easier to play judge and executor - interjecting only when things go out of hand; in fact some forumers may prefer that.

But personally I don't see the point of keeping everyone at two arms' length and pretending to be high and mighty. We are in the business of building communities, virtual or otherwise.

And thanks for taking the time to read this sermon.
 

More important information on the mFT...

Micro Four-Thirds and Telecentricity by The Online Photographer, 11 Aug 2008
Of great importance, if not well understood, is the relaxation of Four-Thirds' rigid telecentric lens standard. CCD imaging chips used in early digicams need light to hit the chip surface at a perpendicular angle, as their photosites sit in depressions that off-angle light can't reach evenly. This creates havoc that the original Four-Thirds standard addressed by demanding system lenses be perpendicular (telecentric). However, newer NMOS chips new used by Olympus and Panasonic don't suffer fatally from angled light, and advanced in-camera processing can address intensity differences that still occur across the frame.

This allows the Micro Four-Thirds rear lens element to sit closer to the chip which, in turn, allows lenses to be smaller. Thus unleashed, camera and lens designers can now employ classic wide angle lens designs unusable in SLRs, create zooms with rear elements that protrude into the camera body, and shrink many lens parts.
that's (the quote) similar to what I said here... but I guess I don't have a big, important sounding website ;p:bsmilie:
 

Last edited:
that's (the quote) similar to what I said here... but I guess I don't have a big, important sounding website ;p:bsmilie:

LOL, marketing 101.

That's why you pay advertising dollars to get the message across! :bsmilie:
 

that's (the quote) similar to what I said here... but I guess I don't have a big, important sounding website ;p:bsmilie:
Maybe u tikam tikam tio one leh? :bsmilie:

Well, if the mFT camera (together with the lenses) from Olympus is going to look like this: New Rumor - Olympus PEN-D1 and D2, I'm sure it will find it's way to my camera bags. The black and silver version look so slick! Kind of back to the 70s feel... :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top