Olympus / Panasonic announce Micro Four Thirds

[nightpiper]

You're comparing equivalent focal lengths here; what CYRN was trying to put across is that a a physical 200/f2.8 for fourthirds will not be much smaller than a 200/f2.8 for 135-format.

The fourthirds 200/f2.8 will be smaller as a smaller image circle is needed, but by not much if telecentricity is to be maintained.

Now, Oly can get away with a 35-100mm/f2 only because the smaller image circle needed. A 135-format f2 zoom will be *huge* as the sensor is twice the dimensional size of a fourthirds sensor, and therefore requiring a much physical lens to cast a sufficiently large image circle - even more so if they want it to be telecentric.

Rationale behind engineering the 35-100/f2? It's because they can, and no other zoom comes even close to matching it. It's a proof of concept lens (as with all the f2 zooms); a little bit of chest-beating to show that it can be done.

I'm actually comparing the FOV of both lenses. CYRN made ref from diCam comparison of the 70-200 vs 50-200 which i feel the disparity is too huge. I do understand his explanation of the physical size.

After looking at so many lenses from so many brands, i seriously dun think its becos they can't produce optics that good, but rather always compromising between practicality, usability & cost. Canon has a 200mm 1.8 & its huge. Nikon has a 200-400 2.8 & its also really huge. Oly has the 90-250 & its also humongous (ask microcosm about its maneuverability). I'm very sure co. like Pentax & CZ can also make exotic stuff but mainly tied down by the 3 main factors.

Dun misunderstood, i'm not bashing Oly. Its the rationale behind making something heavier & cost more than competitors that puzzles me. I've had a brief encounter with the 35-100 & yes, the quality is to die for. Showing off is one thing, usability & marketability is another.

Coming back to u4/3. From the prev explaination in the prev page, u4/3 is compromising all the strengths which 4/3 initially established. To me, that means there's not much diff from other brands other than the weight size factor.

I've also demo'ed that by using 3rd party lenses, the colour still looks very pleasing (to me at least). So by taking the lens out of the equation, what's left behind this "Oly colour"? Boils down to the sensor & signal processing techniques. These same reasons r preventing me from getting DSLRs with the NMOS sensor atm. Let's see what u4/3 has to offer.

Perhaps microcosm can give us a micro tease? :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[microcosm]

Buy a Leica and shoot film... LOL!

 

[drakon09]

Dun misunderstood, i'm not bashing Oly. Its the rationale behind making something heavier & cost more than competitors that puzzles me. I've had a brief encounter with the 35-100 & yes, the quality is to die for. Showing off is one thing, usability & marketability is another.

Leica has the Noctilux, Canon used to have the 50mm/1.0, Sigma has the 200-500mm/2.8.

Do they sell many? No.

Is it really practical to shoot at 1.0? No.

So why make something like that? Because they can, and they want to show off, and the story goes like this - "if they can make something that top notch, the rest of their products must be good as well."

The 90-250mm humongous? PE shoots it handheld and said that it was light, as compared to his Nikon gear.

Obviously I know you're comparing FOV - which was one the main marketing tacks for FourThirds, same lens, double the focal length blah blah. (Oly marketing is the pits actually). The only thing that can truly make a lens smaller and lighter is a smaller mount, or a radical design change, or using something other than glass as a focusing medium.

As I said, lenses play a huge part; although on your part if you don't believe that, I'm really not going to change your mind. It is most obvious in print, not the small 4R prints, but full sized 280-300 dpi prints. There is a world of difference between images shot by the 150/f2 and the 50-200, or the 50 macro and the 14-54; real visible differences, sharpness, contrast, colour rendition, and the overall oomph.

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. Personally I don't care much for noise or high ISOs for that matter, but it's a low-noise world now, the average consumer wants to shoot smooth images in dark rooms without the hassle of a flash now. So at least in the near future, CCDs would be a mainstay for connoisseurs with sufficient fiscal strength to operate MF.

 

[microcosm]

Is it me or am I feeling that sensor design has hit a brickwall and lately have not been hearing any breakthrough?? Or are all the R&D guys locked up in their respective labs trying desperately to come out with something really amazing? For a while, everyone was working on noise reduction algorithms instead of breakthrough sensor design...

Looking forward to the news of these new sensors for 2009... and beyond...

Still waiting for someone to make use of the new Kodak sensors (CCD) that was released a few months back... no news afterwards... hmm... that is my biggest concern right now... I believe my next camera body will still be an Olympus, because nothing's changed... I still like Oly glass though I have forced myself to "downgrade" to SHG since I am no longer shooting as much assignments as before.

Personally as a "consumer" user now and a hobbyist amateur, I am just looking for a system that makes sense to me in functionality, portability, good optics (subjective) and ease of post processing (E-1 users should know), etc... let's hope m43 (short for Micro Four Thirds) will be one that will deliver something interesting...

What it is, well, "we don't know" :sweat:

Hint : Just hang on to your flagship gear and definitely hang on to your lenses... no need to dump gear yet... m43 will take a while to mature into something that will blow you out of your socks...

 

[nightpiper]

Leica has the Noctilux, Canon used to have the 50mm/1.0, Sigma has the 200-500mm/2.8.

Do they sell many? No.

Is it really practical to shoot at 1.0? No.

So why make something like that? Because they can, and they want to show off, and the story goes like this - "if they can make something that top notch, the rest of their products must be good as well."

The 90-250mm humongous? PE shoots it handheld and said that it was light, as compared to his Nikon gear.

Obviously I know you're comparing FOV - which was one the main marketing tacks for FourThirds, same lens, double the focal length blah blah. (Oly marketing is the pits actually). The only thing that can truly make a lens smaller and lighter is a smaller mount, or a radical design change, or using something other than glass as a focusing medium.

As I said, lenses play a huge part; although on your part if you don't believe that, I'm really not going to change your mind. It is most obvious in print, not the small 4R prints, but full sized 280-300 dpi prints. There is a world of difference between images shot by the 150/f2 and the 50-200, or the 50 macro and the 14-54; real visible differences, sharpness, contrast, colour rendition, and the overall oomph.

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. Personally I don't care much for noise or high ISOs for that matter, but it's a low-noise world now, the average consumer wants to shoot smooth images in dark rooms without the hassle of a flash now. So at least in the near future, CCDs would be a mainstay for connoisseurs with sufficient fiscal strength to operate MF.

I understand co. need to tell others they have the tech to make top notch stuff to drive a marketing point. If u look at it, besides F1.0 there r the 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 to satisfy the lower end market. Sigma also has 150-500 & 50-500 to fulfill that group. ZD35-100? Its either u take it or dun, no options. U talk about smaller & lighter (shud this result in cheaper as well? not sure), this ain't it.

Lenses play a huge part, that i believe but what Mr Ogawa said, i dun. Marketing hype is strong in his context thats what i'm disagreeing with. Obviously u dun see my point. i've already made A1 prints with the E1 using 3rd party lens, so what exactly is the dimension of ur "full size"? I had always wanted to invest in the ZD150 but looking at the new range of products since E330, its kinds of discouraging. After seeing the comparison made wind30 with his Sigma SD14, lagi more discouraging.

I'm very clear of the diff between consumer grade products & industrial / pro products. Dun expect to see Hubble telescope tech inside any ZD lenses at the price they r selling. No doubt Oly made very hi end stuff but how much of those tech is filtered down to consumer grade? Lucas used Sony HDCAMs to film his starwars ep 1,2 & 3, but none of that tech is filtered down to their HDV consumer cams selling for $1200, but alot of marketing hype though.

I can also see where u stand from ur understanding of sensors, so lets not go there.

Still waiting for someone to make use of the new Kodak sensors (CCD) that was released a few months back... no news afterwards... hmm... that is my biggest concern right now.

I'm also hoping to see the new Kodak sensors in action soon. :lovegrin:

 

[drakon09]

I understand co. need to tell others they have the tech to make top notch stuff to drive a marketing point. If u look at it, besides F1.0 there r the 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 to satisfy the lower end market. Sigma also has 150-500 & 50-500 to fulfill that group. ZD35-100? Its either u take it or dun, no options. U talk about smaller & lighter (shud this result in cheaper as well? not sure), this ain't it.

The 35-100 is an f2 zoom - find me another f2 zoom and then we're talking.

The Bigmas serve a different market altogether - at the same time, peeps are welcome to the 50-500 as a cheaper option.

Lenses play a huge part, that i believe but what Mr Ogawa said, i dun. Marketing hype is strong in his context thats what i'm disagreeing with. Obviously u dun see my point. i've already made A1 prints with the E1 using 3rd party lens, so what exactly is the dimension of ur "full size"? I had always wanted to invest in the ZD150 but looking at the new range of products since E330, its kinds of discouraging. After seeing the comparison made wind30 with his Sigma SD14, lagi more discouraging.

Every marketing person stretches the truth - that's the gospel of marketers.

Good that 3rd party lenses work for you; they don't for me as there's too much colour tinging for my liking (and more colour correction headaches).

I'm very clear of the diff between consumer grade products & industrial / pro products. Dun expect to see Hubble telescope tech inside any ZD lenses at the price they r selling. No doubt Oly made very hi end stuff but how much of those tech is filtered down to consumer grade? Lucas used Sony HDCAMs to film his starwars ep 1,2 & 3, but none of that tech is filtered down to their HDV consumer cams selling for $1200, but alot of marketing hype though.

They don't filter they stuff down - it'll be too expensive for the average consumer. As you said, it's just chest beating.

I can also see where u stand from ur understanding of sensors, so lets not go there.

I know enough, thank you very much. I said what I said from the average consumer's viewpoint, and the average consumer is the one that will keep you in the black. No profit means no R&D means no new products.

And really, there's no need to be patronising.

 

[nightpiper]

I know enough, thank you very much. I said what I said from the average consumer's viewpoint, and the average consumer is the one that will keep you in the black. No profit means no R&D means no new products.

If u know enuf, wudn't that statement about banding mislead others not in the know?

With all due respect, i personally feel u shud put some discretion to ur posts in future as a Mod in this forum. Sorry, no offence intended.

 

[microcosm]

*ding ding*.... time out... :sweat:

 

[drakon09]

If u know enuf, wudn't that statement about banding mislead others not in the know?

With all due respect, i personally feel u shud put some discretion to ur posts in future as a Mod in this forum. Sorry, no offence intended.

I say, how would my banding statement mislead others? You mean to say there's absolutely *NO* banding from the NMOS when underexposed at high ISOs? Or any MOS-type sensor without going through reference frame substraction, for that matter?

And no offence taken, really. But discretion is practised both ways.

 

[nightpiper]

*ding ding*.... time out... :sweat:

SORRY SORRY!!:angel:

OT quite badly liao :sweatsm:

Back to the topic;

my dollar is bet on this new u4/3 will have a new improve NMOS sensor which is more efficient & more durable so as to generate less heat for the liveview shooting.

Another guess wud be to implement something similar to the E330 or Sony A350, by using another smaller sensor juz for the viewing & the actual sensor reserved for image aquisition.

(ps. Its something else that's creating the banding. CCD will have banding if not design right)

 

[Mikefellh]

Another guess wud be to implement something similar to the E330 or Sony A350, by using another smaller sensor juz for the viewing & the actual sensor reserved for image aquisition.

That will be impossible with the new mFT format as there's no mirror to bounce the image to where the second sensor would be, as it is anyway like the E-330:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/olympusE330/Images/liveview01.gif

 

[drakon09]

(ps. Its something else that's creating the banding. CCD will have banding if not design right)

As long as we're not splitting hairs here - just don't assume that I don't know based on a general statement.

There are tons of literature out there on the subject.

 

[MichaelLee]

I'm actually comparing the FOV of both lenses. CYRN made ref from diCam comparison of the 70-200 vs 50-200 which i feel the disparity is too huge. I do understand his explanation of the physical size.

After looking at so many lenses from so many brands, i seriously dun think its becos they can't produce optics that good, but rather always compromising between practicality, usability & cost. Canon has a 200mm 1.8 & its huge. Nikon has a 200-400 2.8 & its also really huge. Oly has the 90-250 & its also humongous (ask microcosm about its maneuverability). I'm very sure co. like Pentax & CZ can also make exotic stuff but mainly tied down by the 3 main factors.

Dun misunderstood, i'm not bashing Oly. Its the rationale behind making something heavier & cost more than competitors that puzzles me. I've had a brief encounter with the 35-100 & yes, the quality is to die for. Showing off is one thing, usability & marketability is another.

Coming back to u4/3. From the prev explaination in the prev page, u4/3 is compromising all the strengths which 4/3 initially established. To me, that means there's not much diff from other brands other than the weight size factor.

I've also demo'ed that by using 3rd party lenses, the colour still looks very pleasing (to me at least). So by taking the lens out of the equation, what's left behind this "Oly colour"? Boils down to the sensor & signal processing techniques. These same reasons r preventing me from getting DSLRs with the NMOS sensor atm. Let's see what u4/3 has to offer.

Perhaps microcosm can give us a micro tease? :bsmilie::bsmilie:

Allow me to take another sample for comparison..

canon 5D with 100m f2.8 marco
D700 with 105mm VR f2.8 marco
e520 with 50mm f2 marco

the result - e20 with 50m f2 marco is the winner..head to shoulder
it is the cheapeat combo, largest apperture, come with IS, and lightest, smallest in built.
50mm is sharp corner to cornet. Sharper compared to the 2 ..according to MTF chart.
downside - the focussing is slowest.

 

[CYRN]

That will be impossible with the new mFT format as there's no mirror to bounce the image to where the second sensor would be, as it is anyway like the E-330:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/olympusE330/Images/liveview01.gif

Really depends on oly's implementation... there could be a fixed semi-reflective mirror.

 

[matthew]

Really depends on oly's implementation... there could be a fixed semi-reflective mirror.

No, there simply won't be enough space for a mirror, of any sort. The looks to me the 'micro' bit of micro four thirds is bringing the lens closer to the sensor. The sensor is the same size, so the image circle of the lenses has to be the same size, so the only way to make it smaller is to ditch the space the mirror traditionally lives in.

The also means contrast-detect autofocus, as SLR phase-detect focus sensors use the mirror....

 

[theITguy]

If anyone bothers to understand how Olympus deal with users, read below:

1. Quality of output from corners to corners

This is the utmost important factor and (possible) advantage over other lens maker in similar lens reach and lens class (to be explained in point 2 below). If the quality is F***** compared to similar lens reach and lens class, then Olympus can close shop immediately. We buy systems, we buy the lens, followed by functionality and sensor, they all come in a package, most of the time not in a perfect package.


2. Zoom Range compatibility

No camera maker is going to create a 30-100 (in 35mm equivalent) today. People are too used to 24-70, 28-70, 24-75 etc range. This is lens reach and lens class, which are defined and refined gradually over time due to needs and wants. Olympus is not going to change this just to suit their system. They have to deal with the basic needs, similar reach in similar class. Else who want to buy a weird system?

You compare a ZD 12-60/2.8-4 to a EF 24-105/4, not a ZD 35-100 to a EF 24-105. The former comparison is a matching comparison, while the latter comparison is a mismatched comparison. Granted, the perspective may be different in certain situations (depth of field etc).

To those who compared (in theory) a ZD 200/2.8 to a EF 200/2.8, they are do not understand anything other than 35mm stuff. There are life other than the makeshift 35mm format (those who knows the 35mm history will know what I talking about).


3. Lighter Gear

I do not know why people like to dwell on this point. It is a known fact that ZD lens compared to a similar class product will be generally faster (in other words, have larger apertures across the board). As comparison, take a ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5 against the EF 100-400/4-5.6, the ZD 14-35/2 against EF 24-70/2.8 (ok, not exactly fair, yet its the closest) and the ZD 35-100/2 against the EF 70-200/2.8.

All 3 are of similar (i) lens reach and (ii) weight. Given the *undisputed* quality of these ZD lens to their direct competitors' offerings, the clearly better aperture range, the ZDs stands a head above the rest. Other than these comparable features, the only downside is the price, which gives the other competitors some headroom.

Keep dwelling, the ZD 35-100 will still be a F2.0, never to a F2.8. People are asking for a Ferrari at the price of a Toyota (no disrespect to Toyota, which makes good cars in different price range). These people bitch online, might as well spend the time thinking about making babies (boast the 1.29 birthrate).

Basically, they are selling a system that is as heavy as the competition, but *better* quality (E520 with 14-54 vs 450D with 28-105). Take it in another view, they are selling a system that is lighter than the competition (E520 with 14-54 vs 5D with 24-105) but at a *lesser* quality.

Olympus is selling a brand, E System. To sell a brand you need the best to boast, and they have the best to boast. The 14-35/2, 35-100/2, 90-250/2.8, 300/2.8 are the lens to stay for the next 10-15 years, at least the optics. To build a 14-35/2.8 or 35-100/2.8 means just like other competitors - "I will raise the bar only when I have to". Granted their bodies are not the best overall, their lens just provide the foundation to move fast when they need to.


Tmr I can just buy a E520 and used my lens interchangably with my E-3. If I need to go wet places, I can with my E-3 and all my lens (weather sealed graded).

 

[drakon09]

Dude, you sound... angry... slow down a little eh?

:cheers:

 

[microcosm]

I couldn't have worded it better... all the brand bitching out there... anyway... it is clear who are the photographers (or aspiring to become one) and cameramen... (the gear... shall not say more)...

Enjoy photography, my dear community. Love you all to bits! :cheers:

 

[coffee3in1]

Wow, u've given me a different perspective on Oly's E System now. I see the trend now. Thanks.

There's 2 directions for development,
- Due to smaller sensor of FT (crop factor 2), better lens can be produced against the competitor
- With mFT, smaller bodies can be designed.

It's difficult for me to see both working together, ie, small & light body with a front "heavy" lens. :dunno:

If anyone bothers to understand how Olympus deal with users, read below:...

3. Lighter Gear

I do not know why people like to dwell on this point. It is a known fact that ZD lens compared to a similar class product will be generally faster...

All 3 are of similar (i) lens reach and (ii) weight. Given the *undisputed* quality of these ZD lens to their direct competitors' offerings, the clearly better aperture range, the ZDs stands a head above the rest. Other than these comparable features, the only downside is the price, which gives the other competitors some headroom. ...

Olympus is selling a brand, E System. To sell a brand you need the best to boast, and they have the best to boast...

Tmr I can just buy a E520 and used my lens interchangably with my E-3. If I need to go wet places, I can with my E-3 and all my lens (weather sealed graded).

 

[drakon09]

Wow, u've given me a different perspective on Oly's E System now. I see the trend now. Thanks.

There's 2 directions for development,
- Due to smaller sensor of FT (crop factor 2), better lens can be produced against the competitor
- With mFT, smaller bodies can be designed.

It's difficult for me to see both working together, ie, small & light body with a front "heavy" lens. :dunno:

Well, it'll be more accurate to say that there is more latitude for FourThirds lenses to be better than the competition.

IMHO, the best two-lens solution of ANY manufacturer at the present moment is the ZD 12-60mm SWD and 50-200mm SWD, covers an effective focal length of 24-400mm, nothing dimmer than f3.5 (other than the long end of the 12-60mm, which goes to f4), and under 3k SGD.

The next best two-lens solution is the ZD 14-54mm and 50-200mm; 28-400mm, nothing dimmer than f3.5, and it's under 2k SGD!

Pop in an EX-25 for macro work, and you have a system capable of shooting almost anything.

There's potential for mFT lenses to be half the size (in terms of volume) and weight of the FT lenses, so you'll get the same capability cheaper and lighter. Key thing would be the speed and accuracy of the AF system, as mFT cannot do phase-detection AF, at least not in the traditional sense.