Olympus / Panasonic announce Micro Four Thirds
- Thread starter diCam
- Start date
- Status
It does make an interesting experimental platform, though. For all we know, m4/3 could be Oly's way to test the consumer level demand for certain optics, then produce only the best (and most popular) ones for 4/3. If anything, pandering to the consumer market through this branch would help the bottom line (more sales, more often), yet maintain a market for full 4/3 lenses for those who have them or prefer the superior glass. This really does seem quite close to the EVIL concept, though. I just hope Oly isn't gona toss out 4/3 in the long run 'coz that'd be a shame.
I would think in the long run, new formats will definitely be introduced, and older ones will get phased out (think FD). It happens to almost all camera manufacturers. We just need to enjoy what we have now for as long as it last! And to think 4/3 is just 6-7years old i think it'll have at least double the time more before a new format takes over so not much to worry.
As stated in the press release, the lens mount diameter is smaller, the distance between the lens and sensor is cut in half, there are two more electrical contacts...the idea is so there's no chance to attempt to put on legacy 4/3 lens by accident (without an adapter), just like today there's no chance to put on an OM lens by accident (without an adapter).
If lines were drawn from the lens mount to the sensor edges the lines would converge, so there's no need to have the lens mount the same diameter of the legacy system.
Why did you think this was an "opps"?
srinivasanj
Member
I am pretty sure they are not going to give away the adapters for free this time since there is no real precedent for people to shift from 4/3 to m-4/3.
I would also not be surprised if the charged more for this adapter. Assuming the adapter has 11 AF confirmation points on the rear (for the new m-4/3 bodies) and 9 AF points in the front, to communicate with the 4/3 lenses, it would definitely cost more than the 4/3 adapter which is basically all metal! Just wondering if AF would still be available on these bodies with the adapter.
srinivasanj
Member
I actually find Olympus' strategy very interesting. Nikon and Canon seem to be pushing to get a share in the professional market with the introduction of the D3, D700, 5D etc. Olympus on the other hand is trying to target everyday consumers. I think overall Olympus' moves are so much better for photography as a whole.
Well, they say the other two pins are for FUTURE use with the possibility to drive faster focusing lens for video purposes...it might be that the other 9pins are an exact function match, in which case the adapter is merely a pass through for the electronics...I can't think of a reason why the camera would need to know that there's a legacy 4/3 lens on the camera, just that there's a 4/3 lens attached.
The more I think about it, the more I like the m4/3 strategy...if it is true that the SLR market is only 7%, m4/3 is attempting to attract the other 93%!!!!!
Many people have mentioned this new format is similar to the Contax G cameras, and personally I remember mini SLRs that used 110 film. Even my 6x6 (120 film) Agfa Isolette was as thin as these new cameras will be, and that was the first camera I used as a child.
srinivasanj
Member
But for the pass through between the lens and the adapter and from the adapter to the body, you would need 9 and 11, right? And wouldnt the communication be as expected only if the body detects that the lens attached is a legacy 4/3? I am assuming that S-AF mode would work with the 4/3 lens and the m-4/3 body and for this the body would need to identify the lens attached.
coffee3in1
Senior Member
Does anyone know about the possibility of recording video on the new format?
It will be give 35mm film camera a BIG run for their money. :bsmilie:
It will be give 35mm film camera a BIG run for their money. :bsmilie:
gooseberry
Senior Member
Another thing I'd be interested in seeing is what Oly marketing says about near telecentric lens designs now - after touting it so much as the advantage of 4/3rds - only to go against that with micro 4/3rds. Oly had said that 4/3rds was supposed to deliver a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper cameras and lenses due to the smaller sensor - which they didn't really deliver - the e-410 and e-420 are not much smaller than a d40 (which has a bigger sensor), 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm for e-420 vs 126 x 94 x 64 mm for the d40 - and the lenses are expensive and not smaller. Actually the lenses are bigger and more expensive because of the near telecentric designs.
micro 4/3rds is a good initiative - but I can't help but wonder if the other manufacturers also release an EVIL camera, the small sensor on the micro 4/3rds will also be the same thorn in the side that 4/3rds had to deal with - because the other EVIL cameras will be of similar size and will have larger sensors.
micro 4/3rds is a good initiative - but I can't help but wonder if the other manufacturers also release an EVIL camera, the small sensor on the micro 4/3rds will also be the same thorn in the side that 4/3rds had to deal with - because the other EVIL cameras will be of similar size and will have larger sensors.
I think the prob was that technology at the time of the launch of the 4/3 standard faced the problem of noticeable light fall off near the edge of the imaging chip due to the greater angle at which the light hit the sensor near the edge which reduced the amount of light the sensor could collect in those areas... so a telecentric design, combined with the 4/3 standard's smaller sensor size, helped to reduce this effect... but now, through differentially aimed microlenses, signal processing, and more sensitive sensors, the problem with light fall off is reduced... technology progresses
edit: addition of the underlined portion
Last edited:
If everyone else does the same, it's probably going to be DoA for prosumers and advanced models such as the LX3 or DP1. This could be more earth-shaking (well, in the digital photography world that is) than we think it is.
That said, the mFT would be so excellent for street shooting - small, discrete, quiet, no loss of IQ from the current FourThirds system, back compatibility with FT lenses (now imagine a 35-100mm on that cute little thing...).
I'm starting to think that the 25mm pancake was a test platform for future mFT lenses; we at least expect primes for mFT to even smaller!
Oh, and if Oly marketing has it's head screwed on right, they'll screw consumers over with typical rangefinder accessories such as hotshoe optical viewfinders.... :bsmilie:
That said, the mFT would be so excellent for street shooting - small, discrete, quiet, no loss of IQ from the current FourThirds system, back compatibility with FT lenses (now imagine a 35-100mm on that cute little thing...).
I'm starting to think that the 25mm pancake was a test platform for future mFT lenses; we at least expect primes for mFT to even smaller!
Oh, and if Oly marketing has it's head screwed on right, they'll screw consumers over with typical rangefinder accessories such as hotshoe optical viewfinders.... :bsmilie:
Last edited:
nightpiper
Senior Member
the 4:3 format is not that widely adopted & now become legacy lenses so soon? :bsmilie: maybe another 5 yrs down, legacy 4:3 will be totally phased out, m4/3 will prevail as the successor.
So we have Sony R1 & Sigma DP1, anyone rem Epson RD1? think that one has an interchangeable lens design too (rangefinder style) albeit not popular. Soon we'll see P&S using APS-C size sensor & DSLR converging to 35mm frame size. Back to 35mm & APS film cam days :lovegrin:
The RD-1 was terribly expensive.
And I'm really not too keen on carrying 135-format monsters.
thinkvision
Senior Member
it means olym give up previous 4/3 system
micro 4/3 is like compact digital RF:thumbsup:
micro 4/3 is like compact digital RF:thumbsup:
- Status
Similar threads
