i thought 12-60mm is 2.8-4?:bsmilie:
Olympus / Panasonic announce Micro Four Thirds
- Thread starter diCam
- Start date
- Status
i thought 12-60mm is 2.8-4?:bsmilie:
Yep... f4, thanks for pointing that one out. :thumbsup:
(note: previous post corrected)
Frankly speaking, I do not think mFT designed equipment will sell well.
1. Pros earning from photography services - Out, not pro looking, maybe for their (female) spouse who are not into photography but want to be align with him (this is provided a she and he marry, not a she + she or he + he).
2. Serious retired old man - Likely sector, when they have a high ego with no strength to use the FT system, but do not want a prosumer class (like Panasonic FZ series).
3. Family Man - Likely sector. Too scare of wife nagging at him with a DSLR (and at the same time ball shrinking), so buy a compromised system between DSLR and compact, with 80% quality/functions of DSLR, plus LIVE VIEW, capture by any of the family members since it is to be lighter.
4. Serious wannabes like me - Possible, if you have a DSLR but you got a galfen who you wanna psycho into photography, lighter and cheaper than a 2nd system. Then again you must have the $$$ to support both wives (mFT system and galfren). Later 2 of them fight (inside your head) and you get confused who has priority. Just remember not to masterbed with the wrong wife.
1. Pros earning from photography services - Out, not pro looking, maybe for their (female) spouse who are not into photography but want to be align with him (this is provided a she and he marry, not a she + she or he + he).
2. Serious retired old man - Likely sector, when they have a high ego with no strength to use the FT system, but do not want a prosumer class (like Panasonic FZ series).
3. Family Man - Likely sector. Too scare of wife nagging at him with a DSLR (and at the same time ball shrinking), so buy a compromised system between DSLR and compact, with 80% quality/functions of DSLR, plus LIVE VIEW, capture by any of the family members since it is to be lighter.
4. Serious wannabes like me - Possible, if you have a DSLR but you got a galfen who you wanna psycho into photography, lighter and cheaper than a 2nd system. Then again you must have the $$$ to support both wives (mFT system and galfren). Later 2 of them fight (inside your head) and you get confused who has priority. Just remember not to masterbed with the wrong wife.
phan_vinh_nguyen
New Member
I myself think that Oly and Panny want to define a totally new style in photography with their philosophy of camera design. Therefore, the target user of this new format has not appeared yet. Maybe just several people want to try the new style. The success of this new format depend on their strategy of marketing. Oly always dream of creating something new, and they really can achieve some.
IMHO, this new style in photography may be interesting. It is everywhere, active and dynamic. Those who try it will not mind about income, ego, or old constrains of old styles of photography. Hope that Oly can success with it, like Leica and Lomo did.
I myself will buy one mFT camera if I can affort.
IMHO, this new style in photography may be interesting. It is everywhere, active and dynamic. Those who try it will not mind about income, ego, or old constrains of old styles of photography. Hope that Oly can success with it, like Leica and Lomo did.
I myself will buy one mFT camera if I can affort.
nightpiper
Senior Member
I didn't assume. I deduced from what was posted, the sentence "As for NMOS sensors vs CCD sensors the real difference between them other than the physical attributes, is the NMOS suffers from banding at underexposed high ISOs, and CCD suffers from extreme levels of chroma noise at high ISOs."
Sorry if i misread it in anyway but it reads "Only NMOS has banding but not CCD & CCD problem is with chroma noise" So how real is real & to what extend? Does it mean that NMOS has less chroma noise or lower noise than CCD? Base on ur justification, that means its ok for me to tell my 4 yr old the earth is flat if the average 4 yr olds view point is such? Heck No! i wudn't want to do that.
theITguy said:
That was quite a read i must say, very insightful.
What i'm about to say is more of an objective observation & nothing more than that. Feel free to disagree, afterall this is an open discussion forum, so again no offence intended to anyone.Point 1 i wud only agree to a certain degree. This only applies to the higher end lenses. The lower end lenses (entry level) suffer from corner softening, CA as well as vignetting juz like any other brands. Maybe less but its noticeable. At least my ZD14-54 exhibit corner softening & vignetting.
Where does this bring us from here? Lets look at it from the other brands perspective. If u get a hi end lens, say a Nikon 24-70 or 14-24 & use it on the D80, u'll get corner to corner sharpness as well. Lets drop the FOV & focal length for awhile juz for discussion sake. Quality wise its nothing short from the ZD12-60 or 14-54 or any other zoom lens. Why is this so? Looking at samples floating around the web & tech charts, the resolution of these hi grade lenses r very high & when used on a sensor thats 1.5x or 1.6x, will yield quality no less than a 2x sensor coupled with a 2x more resolution lens. Afterall, 35mm lens were made to "juz enuf" for that format & the 4/3 lenses r also "juz enuf", no Hubble tech here.
Coming back to the reality, this is the exact reason why users from other brands r not complaining about the quality & their individual brands r still expanding. Look at the newer lenses thats emerging, u can clearly see that competitors r coming out with higher rez lenses for the demanding nature of digital imaging. Does 4/3 still has the edge advantage? Something to ponder. Competitors r not complacent at all, they r replacing the older lenses surely & steadily, another eg. wud be the EF-S 17-55 F2.8.
Point 2. Yes Oly needs the equv FOV. They r doing a good job here i must admit. The low end has a good range covered & the hi end has its own. However, Oly is still lacking in primes. The perfectionist market is left quite open at this point, Oly/Pana needs to addr this quickly. Anyone who touched the ZD150 will understand what i'm talking about.
Point 3. I think if the 3 lenses can be made lighter on top of the aperture adv, that wud be a real killer. I for one was really hoping for the Oly "promise" of lighter gear. The price is also big concern. With point 1 into consideration about quality using hi end lenses on crop sensors, the 4/3 adv is dwarf somewhat.
Oly/Pana definitely seen all these coming & i believe is the reason for u4/3, a totally new strategy & concept, made P&S users feel more familiar & the upgrade path follows. With point 1 in mind again, they r willing to compromise the initial adv of 4/3 since many DSLR users dun mind the soft corners & CA & vignetting. Only time will tell if this will rise to a popular standard.
Before this thread gets OT to infinity, lets come back onto the track: Time for some crazy dreaming!
Here's how i think a 2nd sensor can be integrated for juz liveview purpose w/o touching the actual sensor. Use the leaf shutter model & mod it to fit a 2nd sensor. :bsmilie::bsmilie: U can now have liveview with instant AF PLUS flash sync at any speed.
Next fun thing to incorporate into the u4/3 is perhaps a Tilt/Shift function on the sensor itself. No its not exactly the same as an actual T/S lens & the image circle from the lens needs to be bigger. But what the heck, its all in the name of art & good fun!! :lovegrin:
Last edited:
I remember when SUVs and minivans first came on the market...the pundits tried to pigeon-hold the vehicles, saying what type of driver would buy it and others that would ignore that market class of vehicle. Using your classes above they said things like:
1) Pros won't like them because they are too small compared to their full size trucks.
2) Older men won't like it because they prefer luxury and comfort.
3) Families would like them because it can hold more than a regular car, but not be so unwieldy like a full size van.
4) Serious wannabee off-roaders will like it, even though most of these vehicles won't be taken off pavement.
Now that the market segment for these types of vehicles they are bought by all classes because the manufacturers have made improvements and tailored the vehicles for the different buyers.
The same thing may happen to FourThirds...for instance Leica may come back and modify the format so it's more like their rangefinders with the same image quality, so that:
1) Pros who want a rangefinder will love it.
2) Older people who had rangefinders in the past will love it.
3) Families who want a lighter camera with more quality will love it.
4) Wannabe photo artists and photo journalists will love it because it's small and doesn't scream CAMERA.
You just have to look at the success of the E-4xx series, sure a lot of people said that Oly should abandon that line since they are too small, but a lot of people who wanted a small SLR bought it, and I can see the same thing happening again with the mFT format.
Now, would it be better if I went: "the current crop of NMOS sensors, (by which when we say "sensor" we mean the sensor and the corresponding ADC circuity and blah blah, and then go on to attach the appropriate white paper explaining FPN and temporal noise generated in imaging sensors), used by the E-330, E4x0, E5x0, E3 suffers from banding at high ISOs versus the previous generation of 5mp, 8mp and 10mp Kodak FFT CCD sensors used in the E-1, E-300 and E-400 suffering from extreme levels (and of course this is relative) of chroma noise at high ISOs".
It would also have been a lot easier for you, at the first instance, to go on and expand (as well as debunk, de-myth and refute) my statement instead of a single-line retort without any sort of explanation. Then we could go on without this long drawn out saga.
Last edited:
Like I say, its marketing as usual for a business. Which leader or potential leader do not market themselves to success? But having say that, I do not disagree with your point above. The top end lens are for Olympus to bitch to Canon, just like Canon's 1Ds Mk III. Who use them other than a few niche groups? Just get the picture and F*** off. Sports photographer even uses the EF 35-350 at times. Maciam the old Canon advertisement where they show all the white lens besides the field, how many of us actually buys those long tele? Keep as toys can lah, bring out to shoot? Or even afford it.
I think my sister with her 70-300 on a D60 did quite well.
Sorry, I am trying to be a decent picture maker (note, not photographer, not qualified). Qn: Does either Nikkors fit my requirement of a photojournalism style? If 24-70 solve the issue, I will probably get that combo. Unfortunately, the comparison is telling me to pay more for something that I cannot use (24mm wide on the 24-70) plus a heavier weight. You might as well tell me to street shoot using a ZD300/2.8 (yes, sacastic joke). There is a reason why FX and DX lens are created. Note, again, I do not disagree that the quality is similar, just that your comparison is ........ (fill in the blank)
I bet to differ. As I said, your comparison is ........... (fill in the blank), thats why no one complains coz no one uses a 24-70 on a D80. You pay more than double the price of a 16-85 and almost double the weight to get to a 12-60, with less wide range? For your information, I would have gotten the 14-24 and 24-120 if D3/D700 is cheaper. Having said that, I will probably miss the Olympus users, some of them are truely helpful (you know who you are).
No comments, not into tele.
Disagree in any situation. Going by your comparison, Oly is definitely lighter and cheaper by using 12-60 with E520 against a 24-70 on a D80. Going by my comparison, Oly using a 12-60 with E520 against a 16-85 with D80 wins hands down in terms of quality. Pricing wise slightly more expensive with Nikon's promotion.
To be successful, you need to take the market by storm. If you are creating something that is new (in this case mFT), no competitors, you need to move fast. This is something Olympus do not have, the quick execution of the release. "A lot" in terms of E-4xx sales is really nothing to me. There are a lot of noise, but few actually bought it. People in my office who not even know Olympus makes DSLR. They were saying Canon, Nikon, Sony and even Pentax, but not Olympus?
Either they sell a kit lens with body at $600 price point or lower, else they can forget about boasting their market share. Money talks and when it talks, your brand value increase so does future sales. They need to hit hard at Canon/Nikon and traditional market in terms of the Prosumer class and entry level DSLR price range. They need to be competitive at compacts' price range. No one will buy if you have a kit for $800 or more (which compact sell so high?). You have to have an incentive for them to buy. Money talks.
The main rumour going around says that Panny will introduce mFT at Photokina, Oly to announce a new FT body. As for mFT, Oly would only put out one next year.
seems logical. Panny will gain more from mFT than Oly would. like how the L10 was developed from the FZxx series of prosumers, the mFT cameras would be the next level for the LX series of serious compacts. the new LX3 would fill the gap for now until mFT is launched with a line of lenses for future LX series upgraders to move on to.
can't wait to see the flagship mFT camera....imagine a L1 in a LX3 form factor and those Leica lenses.... :thumbsup: happy times ahead!
Heard differently, Panny will have a working camera and lens(es), while Oly will have a block of wood mockup of their future mFT stuff.
Ah, if so, Panny may just release an mFT kit just in time for Christmas and given the progress they made with their Venus IV engine on the LX-3, Panny might just pull a coup on the industry!
Which also means that it might be fiscally dumb to get an LX-3 now; time for a quick poison purge... :bsmilie:
Last edited:
I do hope Pana/Oly pull a coup and have a big enough market share so that the FT/mFT format stay for years to come (say 15-20?).
Heh, the way technology is progressing today, I'd be happy if the format stays relevant for 10!
Dun liddat lah, 10 means FT will be 10 in 5 years time (it launched in 2003 leh).
nightpiper
Senior Member
Ok lets clear the air once & for all. From my understanding, banding is not restricted to sensor types. So its not juz about the NMOS & FFT-CCD. Cameras with multi channel read outs r very prone to this. Please do the honor of explaining ur understanding. By juz putting in a few jarjons is not going to clarify anything, like that might as well put in the formula to cal. QE as well.
theITguy said:
I thot u were mentioning about the img quality & not the FL or FOV in the initial post? I also made it clear juz for argurment sake, ignore the FL FOV for awhile. In reality, there r people using the 24-70 on the crop body. Reason? See next para. Please bear in mind, no matter how hi quality the lens we perceive to be, they r still classified under consumer grade products. That means they r made juz enuf for the particular usage, anything exceeding that threshold wud result in much higher cost.
I bet to differ ur differ (ok, lame joke :sweat
People who use the 24-70 on crop bodies r users aiming to go FF with their brand (Sony, Nikon or Canon) in the future. Very much like why u wud invest in a $3k or more lens for the future better bodies. I dun see any diff, do u? In case u r wondering what i'm blabbing about, we r still at the topic of hi end lenses which produce technically superior imgs, i wudn't rate the 12-60 as hi end, speaking from personal hands on experience.Ur comparison with 12-60 against 24-70 is ...... (fill in the blank also, a bit of copycat but...) Comparing a E520 against D80 is also ..... (pls fill in again) Think a better comparison wud be a D40x with 16-85 or 400D with 17-55 (tele range a little short though) Img quality is pretty darn good too.
Maybe true with the quality factor against the 16-85 but by how much better? Significant to how many percent of users? Like i mentioned, majority of users dun mind about technical superiority, esp those lower end users. Those who mind wud have gotten the higher end stuff. u4/3 is compromising the same, so i might say the playing field now becomes similar?
This left behind light weight factor. Sadly, light weight alone doesn't sell cams. Yet again the reality sets in. Users dun mind the weight as long as the sys is light enuf for them irregardless of brand.
I agree with u totally that Oly/pana needs to market this new u4/3 quickly & aggressively. The way i see it, its in a very fragile situation & is a hi risk bet. What i see is other companies will soon produce P&S with APS-C size sensors. Throw in a mega zoom with built in IS & sell it at the price point of the u4/3. Very hard to fight P&S weight. What's next? Consumers wanting better quality will go straight to an entry level DSLR, & consumers wanting light weight will likely be swayed to the P&S. The hole u4/3 is supposed to fill becomes "void", & Oly might eventually produce P&S with 4/3 sensor in order to stay competitive.
Finally, dun misinterpret my words. I'm not bitching about 4/3 or bashing u4/3, juz pure discussion of what this new format might be. Think of it as analyst POV.
Well, the 24-70mm FX was a effectively a ground-up design to accommodate the FX sensor; very much what ZDs are all this while.
What is does is effectively demonstrate the cost difference against performance factor between FX/135FF and FourThirds.
FourThirds is a cheaper system; regardless of the spin others may weave.
- Status
Similar threads
