Olympus reviving four third?

[rhino123]

Oly or Panny has never abandon 4/3 at all. It's more like a baby neglected for a long time. Now they are merely introducing new type of milk powders and pampers for their beloved baby.

If I am not wrong. The 4/3 standard came about because of Olympus and Kodak's joint venture in designing and developing of the sensor.

The micro4/3 on the other hand was a joint development by Olympus and Panasonic. Although the sensor size are the same physically, they are essentially different sensor and Panasonic didn't have anytning to do with 4/3 sensor.

From what I know (I might be wrong though), the 4/3 sensor is a DSLR sensor, which mean clearance had been taken into consideration during designing for the mirror assembly, while m4/3 sensor do not have this clearance and hence a shorter flange distance.

 

[CrimsonS]

You are right. Looks like Olympus is the only one coming up with the bodies (latest being E5). Panasonic makes the 4/3 lens only.

 

[wonglp]

If I am not wrong. The 4/3 standard came about because of Olympus and Kodak's joint venture in designing and developing of the sensor.

The micro4/3 on the other hand was a joint development by Olympus and Panasonic. Although the sensor size are the same physically, they are essentially different sensor and Panasonic didn't have anytning to do with 4/3 sensor.

From what I know (I might be wrong though), the 4/3 sensor is a DSLR sensor, which mean clearance had been taken into consideration during designing for the mirror assembly, while m4/3 sensor do not have this clearance and hence a shorter flange distance.

Afaik, panasonic makes sensors for some 43rd cameras too (E330 onwards i think), only earlier E1 and E300,E500 were kodak sensors. Panasonic did say they will no longer support 43 format though. I actually think the sensor can be the same whether 43/m43, flange distance though will affect the size of camera and lens. I could also be wrong :bsmilie:

 

[-120-]

4/3 or M4/3 are all using the same size of sensors and that the reason they are called 4/3....

Was looking at 43 as a ratio, larger mount(43mount vs m43) on a shorter "lens to sensor" distance(mirrorless) body, a possibility for a larger sensor in 43 ratio/format.

 

[rhino123]

Afaik, panasonic makes sensors for some 43rd cameras too (E330 onwards i think), only earlier E1 and E300,E500 were kodak sensors. Panasonic did say they will no longer support 43 format though. I actually think the sensor can be the same whether 43/m43, flange distance though will affect the size of camera and lens. I could also be wrong :bsmilie:

Hmm... you are right . I did a search and yes, the E330 uses the same sensor (that was manufactured by Panasonic) as the DMC-L1.

The sensor for both 4/3 and m4/3 are physically of the same size. However, the 4/3 sensor was designed to have a mirror assembly thus the deeper flange distance and the micro4/3 didn't have. Thus a micro4/3 sensor is very difficult to be implemented into a DSLR that could use a 4/3 mount lenses, unless a certain tweaking of the sensor was being done, I cannot see how this can be implemented :cry:

 

[thatnikon]

Oly or Panny has never abandon 4/3 at all. It's more like a baby neglected for a long time. Now they are merely introducing new type of milk powders and pampers for their beloved baby.

Panasonic may likely abandoned 43 but Olympus will never do so... that's why some shops are selling Olympus 43 lens & bodies but not Panasonic 43

 

[rhema83]

Hmm... you are right . I did a search and yes, the E330 uses the same sensor (that was manufactured by Panasonic) as the DMC-L1.

The sensor for both 4/3 and m4/3 are physically of the same size. However, the 4/3 sensor was designed to have a mirror assembly thus the deeper flange distance and the micro4/3 didn't have. Thus a micro4/3 sensor is very difficult to be implemented into a DSLR that could use a 4/3 mount lenses, unless a certain tweaking of the sensor was being done, I cannot see how this can be implemented :cry:

The sensor itself has little to do with the flange distance. The former is electronics and the latter is physical design; they are independent components. The OMD's suspended sensor system may lead to some mounting issues, but otherwise it should be easily fitted into a 4/3 body.

Then again, I think the market forces will eventually force Olympus to give up on DSLRs. PDAF-capable sensors are already in the market (e.g. Nikon 1) so there is no good reason to keep the mirror box except for the OVF. This is like the transition from twin-lens-reflex to single-lens-reflex. Now we have no reflex.

 

[ageha]

PDAF-capable sensors are already in the market (e.g. Nikon 1) so there is no good reason to keep the mirror box except for the OVF.

Don't forget the sluggish EOS 650 followed soon by the EOS M, NEX-5R and NEX-6.

 

[bousozoku]

Put OMD sensor into E-1, with IS and same color as the Kodak sensor, that's the dream!

For me, the IS doesn't matter, nor does the Live View, video, or large display. I'd just like to have a good sensor is a smaller body.

If they can add I.S. and update the auto focus without changing the exterior of the body, that would be great. You'd think as small as the E-M5 is, that they'd be able to fit everything without compromise into an E-1.

Look at it another way. If Olympus can produce a pro m4/3 camera which has very fast CDAF and PDAF, the critical AF performance issue would be solved and 4/3 users would lose only the OVF when transitioning to m4/3. They can continue to use their superb HG and SHG lenses, or buy some smaller but equally capable m4/3 lenses (such as the 12mm f/2.0 or the new 75mm f/1.8). On the other hand, m4/3 users who have been itching to try the fabled 4/3 lenses can finally do so, thus opening a market for Olympus to recoup some of the development cost of the 4/3 lenses. It's going to be a win-win.

Sure, I can see why they might do that, and they could do it as an alternative body for hobbyists.

I don't want (can't use quickly) a tiny body or a bigger body that doesn't have a substantial grip. I don't use petite lenses, unless you consider the 50mm macro that I rarely use, so I need something better balanced to heavy, larger lenses. Even the E-620 is unsuitable for me, since the viewfinder is barely a peephole. The PDAF/CDAF issue really doesn't bother me a lot since it would be rare for me to use auto focus. Since I got my E-5, I've used auto focus about 200,000 times as much as on the E-1, and I'm still not satisfied with my tests of it.

I know that there will come a time when we all give up the dSLR, but a lot of changes have to happen. I continue to look for Panasonic's DMC-GH3 in the hopes that proper lenses will make it a substitute, but proper lenses are the missing part.

 

[Hacker]

The 43 format is dead; not sure what advantage is there. Used the 43 format before and the lenses were so huge, so expensive, and a sensor 4 times smaller than a FF that no amount of marketing spin could save it. That was then. Now, the gap is even wider if the 43 format is to be revived.

 

[Sispecho]

The 43 format is dead; not sure what advantage is there. Used the 43 format before and the lenses were so huge, so expensive, and a sensor 4 times smaller than a FF that no amount of marketing spin could save it. That was then. Now, the gap is even wider if the 43 format is to be revived.

I will buy an updated e620. Im still in it for the lenses. The 14-54mm is a cheap and good lens for me!

 

[spidey89]

For me, the IS doesn't matter, nor does the Live View, video, or large display. I'd just like to have a good sensor is a smaller body.

If they can add I.S. and update the auto focus without changing the exterior of the body, that would be great. You'd think as small as the E-M5 is, that they'd be able to fit everything without compromise into an E-1.

Sure, I can see why they might do that, and they could do it as an alternative body for hobbyists.

I don't want (can't use quickly) a tiny body or a bigger body that doesn't have a substantial grip. I don't use petite lenses, unless you consider the 50mm macro that I rarely use, so I need something better balanced to heavy, larger lenses. Even the E-620 is unsuitable for me, since the viewfinder is barely a peephole. The PDAF/CDAF issue really doesn't bother me a lot since it would be rare for me to use auto focus. Since I got my E-5, I've used auto focus about 200,000 times as much as on the E-1, and I'm still not satisfied with my tests of it.

I know that there will come a time when we all give up the dSLR, but a lot of changes have to happen. I continue to look for Panasonic's DMC-GH3 in the hopes that proper lenses will make it a substitute, but proper lenses are the missing part.

Same goes for me, agree that if they can build to stuff into a body as small as EM-5, can be fitted into an E-1 body

The 43 format is dead; not sure what advantage is there. Used the 43 format before and the lenses were so huge, so expensive, and a sensor 4 times smaller than a FF that no amount of marketing spin could save it. That was then. Now, the gap is even wider if the 43 format is to be revived.

One thing for sure, its lighter and the tele lenses are longer, I don't find the lenses much more expensive than other formats. I didn't find the lenses huge, my 14-54 is smaller than my 24-70, my E-3 was lighter than my D3, I'm not that old, but the fact I'm not getting any younger made me miss the 43 format but I'm sticking with my D3 at the moment and keeping my E-1 as well

 

[milez]

My understanding is, difference between 4/3 and m4/3 is the distance between sensor and lens. Sensor size is exactly the same and interoperable. I maybe wrong. But I thought E5 and EP3 shares the same 12 mp Panasonic sensor.

The 4/3.... Hmm, they could make it mirrorless, use EVF, but flange is 4/3 mount. In which case they can redesign the body, use PDAF and CDAF simultaneously, yet keep body slightly smaller than DSLR but bigger than m4/3. Accessories to improve grip to make it like DSLR if users wanted to.

Or improve on E-M5 and call it E-M5Ti or CF(carbon fibre)...

 

[rhema83]

The 43 format is dead; not sure what advantage is there. Used the 43 format before and the lenses were so huge, so expensive, and a sensor 4 times smaller than a FF that no amount of marketing spin could save it. That was then. Now, the gap is even wider if the 43 format is to be revived.

There is some truth to this harsh statement. Olympus took advantage of the smaller 4/3 sensor and shorter flange distance to develop very large aperture zooms and long telephoto lenses, rather than industry-standard equivalents (e.g. 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8) in smaller packages. Worse, the bodies and lenses were not cheaper than the competing DSLR systems. The advantages were clearly not compelling enough to convince the pros to switch. (e.g. a 1-stop advantage vs. 1/4 the sensor size) Thus, it failed to gain market share and could not build the critical mass to sustain itself.

Remember that Olympus is a commercial entity with the ultimate goal of making money. 4/3 users form a very small portion of their customer base and it makes no economic sense for Olympus to revive the 4/3 system as-is. Every dollar Olympus pours into 4/3 R&D will likely yield much lower (or potential negative) returns than m4/3 R&D. It is good business strategy to limit your losses on bad ventures (admit the mistake and move on) and redeploy resources to good ones.

Moreover, given how Olympus has lost so much money due to its struggling business and recent scandal, funds are probably very limited and thus must be utilised in the most efficient way possible. It probably does not have the luxury of keeping 4/3 as a "hobby" like Apple does with the Apple TV. I would rather have Olympus let 4/3 users to transition to m4/3 with a bridging model (e.g. a pro DSLR-styled body with m4/3 mount and MMF-3 adaptor in the package) than to abandon 4/3 or make further losses altogether.

That said, it is the photographer who can make the best of his system. The 4/3 system is no slouch and can produce brilliant photos. Whether Olympus continues to support the 4/3 system is immaterial to your ability to take good photos with what you already own. Since you already made the purchase, why not make the best out of it? Yes, you are taking a hit on the resale value. But you didn't "invest" in camera gear for financial returns, you purchased it to use it as a depreciating and limited-lifespan tool.

 

[rhema83]

My understanding is, difference between 4/3 and m4/3 is the distance between sensor and lens. Sensor size is exactly the same and interoperable. I maybe wrong. But I thought E5 and EP3 shares the same 12 mp Panasonic sensor.

The 4/3.... Hmm, they could make it mirrorless, use EVF, but flange is 4/3 mount. In which case they can redesign the body, use PDAF and CDAF simultaneously, yet keep body slightly smaller than DSLR but bigger than m4/3. Accessories to improve grip to make it like DSLR if users wanted to.

Or improve on E-M5 and call it E-M5Ti or CF(carbon fibre)...

Sounds like NVidia (i.e. GT560Ti) and Lenovo (i.e. Thinkpad X1 Carbon) marketing spins to me! But rather than a 4/3 mount, it should be a m4/3 mount with a 4/3 adaptor bundled (or a discount coupon for 4/3 adaptor). This will allow 4/3 users to transition to m4/3 eventually.

 

[bousozoku]

Sounds like NVidia (i.e. GT560Ti) and Lenovo (i.e. Thinkpad X1 Carbon) marketing spins to me! :bigsmile: But rather than a 4/3 mount, it should be a m4/3 mount with a 4/3 adaptor bundled (or a discount coupon for 4/3 adaptor). This will allow 4/3 users to transition to m4/3 eventually.

Why would the current Four-Thirds users transition to micro Four-Thirds when Olympus and Panasonic refuse to make great lenses for the format in order to keep things small? :bsmilie:

 

[thatnikon]

Why would the current Four-Thirds users transition to micro Four-Thirds when Olympus and Panasonic refuse to make great lenses for the format in order to keep things small? :bsmilie:

Olympus has quite a number of legendary lens for the 4/3, some example like 90-250, 12-35 etc...

 

[milez]

Why would the current Four-Thirds users transition to micro Four-Thirds when Olympus and Panasonic refuse to make great lenses for the format in order to keep things small? :bsmilie:

Because simply, 4/3 is dead, not cost efficient, not size efficient. Nobody except Olympus supporting it.
New camera from Olympus will be mirrorless m4/3... But optimize to use 4/3 lens.

 

[rhema83]

Why would the current Four-Thirds users transition to micro Four-Thirds when Olympus and Panasonic refuse to make great lenses for the format in order to keep things small? :bsmilie:

There is a good selection of high-quality micro four-thirds lenses available. I do not wish to repeat numerous previous posts about them and their favourable comparison to more expensive and bulkier DSLR counterparts. I suggest you try them out for yourself.

Of course, there are lenses that compromise optical quality for size. Olympus and Panasonic are simply addressing the need of that market segment. As I have said, Olympus and Panasonic are out to make money and nothing else.

 

[bousozoku]

Olympus has quite a number of legendary lens for the 4/3, some example like 90-250, 12-35 etc...

Yes, Four-Thirds, not micro Four-Thirds.

There is a good selection of high-quality micro four-thirds lenses available. I do not wish to repeat numerous previous posts about them and their favourable comparison to more expensive and bulkier DSLR counterparts. I suggest you try them out for yourself.

Of course, there are lenses that compromise optical quality for size. Olympus and Panasonic are simply addressing the need of that market segment. As I have said, Olympus and Panasonic are out to make money and nothing else.

There are four or five decent micro Four-Thirds fixed focal length lenses. The zooms are all compromises.