The Future IS Mirror-less: so says Olympus
- Thread starter artspraken
- Start date
- Status
Oh no, not that again.
So if various companies make cameras with sensors that are, for example of the following dimensions:
a x b
c x d
e x f
g x h
.......etc
they can all claim to be "full frame" sensor.
Because of the spurious argument that
a x b
c x d
e x f
g x h
is the "full" size of my "frame".
Since 35mm film is a popular format, when people talk about full frame sensor, they mean the dimensions of the 35mm film frame.
So if various companies make cameras with sensors that are, for example of the following dimensions:
a x b
c x d
e x f
g x h
.......etc
they can all claim to be "full frame" sensor.
Because of the spurious argument that
a x b
c x d
e x f
g x h
is the "full" size of my "frame".
Since 35mm film is a popular format, when people talk about full frame sensor, they mean the dimensions of the 35mm film frame.
If u consider a US$3 billion dollar business a side show...OK, it is a side show. U can call it whatever u want.
FYI, I just dug this up since we are discussing this :
Olympus Sales Annually Estimated in USD
Digital Cameras $3 billion
Endoscopy $3 billion
Microscopy $1-2 billion
Info and Comms $2.5 billion
Others $0.6 billion
Olympus is a optical company that deals in optical products - namely cameras, endoscopes, and microscopes. It obviously diversifies a little. For me, I would consider that side show to be info and comms or Others.
Nope, that is totally not the rationale of calling it full frame. U should know that, right, being a senior member? Or u din and I have to explain it.
Last edited:
Interesting. What about the mirror that u are so attached to in the camera? Is it because it gives u a view of what the sensor / film will see most accurately, or u just like the sound or tactile feel of the mirror slap?
Ok Oly. It was just a tongue in cheek remark at what marketing divisions can come up with just to support their products (which is nothing wrong, just funny). No need for long paragraphs to defend 
Olympus went off in its own direction which is just fine. As long as they hold true to their customers and ensure backward compatibility with whatever new format they may want to develop in future.
Nikon and Leica are good examples of keeping old customers happy.
Olympus went off in its own direction which is just fine. As long as they hold true to their customers and ensure backward compatibility with whatever new format they may want to develop in future.
Nikon and Leica are good examples of keeping old customers happy.
Yup, it is a smaller sensor, but there is a rationale for the size. And yes, it is still a digital full-frame sensor system made from the ground up so that every component is digital compatible.
More 4/3 Info (From Four Thirds User Forum)
"Four Thirds is the collective name for the camera system comprising compatible DSLR camera bodies, interchangeable lenses, accessories, and software. Originally conceived by Olympus, in the form of its unique, designed-for-digital E-System, launched in 2003 with the Olympus E-1 semi-professional specification camera, Olympus found it difficult to meet the monumental challenge of establishing the brand new E-System as a successful alternative to other camera manufacturers, including Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma Fujifilm, Kodak, and others who simply, and relatively inexpensively, adapted their 35mm film camera systems to digital.
Olympus had all but quit the mass-market 35mm film SLR market in the early 90s after deciding not to upgrade its manual-focus OM-system for the market demand of autofocus SLR cameras. Therefore, Olympus had the advantage of launching into the up and coming digital SLR age with a clean sheet. The result was the E-System, with Kodak supplying sensor chips and both Fujifilm and Sanyo signed up as technology partners.
Four Thirds is still the only DSLR system standard designed from scratch to be a thoroughbred digital platform. In relation to the size of the sensor, the Four Thirds lens mount is huge, enabling a large diameter rear lens element to cover the sensor area and minimise a significant issue experienced with lenses designed for film when used on digital sensors. With lenses like these, designed with relatively under-sized rear elements, sometimes too close to the sensor, the physical characteristics of the surface of a digital sensor, made up of millions of microscopic light sensitive pits, reduced light collecting efficiency towards the corners of the frame ushered in a new term: corner shading. Besides darkening in the corners, lenses not optimised for digital sensors could also cause reduced sharpness and chromatic aberration, or fringeing. Olympus knew about these issues and formulated the Four Thirds lens mount diameter, sensor size and distance between mount and sensor to minimise corner shading."
Yes, ur 7 foot basketballer is a bigger full-frame...but he is not optimized, unlike the 4/3 full frame which is optimized for digital technology. In order for your 135 full frame sensor to be fully optimized, I would imagine that your lens, AND lens mount, would have to be about 2x the size of what it is currently. Clearly, it is not practical. In this kind of situation, u might as well go medium format. So, u shoe horn the 135 full frame technology into the camera body, and market it to death.
More 4/3 Info (From Four Thirds User Forum)
"Four Thirds is the collective name for the camera system comprising compatible DSLR camera bodies, interchangeable lenses, accessories, and software. Originally conceived by Olympus, in the form of its unique, designed-for-digital E-System, launched in 2003 with the Olympus E-1 semi-professional specification camera, Olympus found it difficult to meet the monumental challenge of establishing the brand new E-System as a successful alternative to other camera manufacturers, including Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma Fujifilm, Kodak, and others who simply, and relatively inexpensively, adapted their 35mm film camera systems to digital.
Olympus had all but quit the mass-market 35mm film SLR market in the early 90s after deciding not to upgrade its manual-focus OM-system for the market demand of autofocus SLR cameras. Therefore, Olympus had the advantage of launching into the up and coming digital SLR age with a clean sheet. The result was the E-System, with Kodak supplying sensor chips and both Fujifilm and Sanyo signed up as technology partners.
Four Thirds is still the only DSLR system standard designed from scratch to be a thoroughbred digital platform. In relation to the size of the sensor, the Four Thirds lens mount is huge, enabling a large diameter rear lens element to cover the sensor area and minimise a significant issue experienced with lenses designed for film when used on digital sensors. With lenses like these, designed with relatively under-sized rear elements, sometimes too close to the sensor, the physical characteristics of the surface of a digital sensor, made up of millions of microscopic light sensitive pits, reduced light collecting efficiency towards the corners of the frame ushered in a new term: corner shading. Besides darkening in the corners, lenses not optimised for digital sensors could also cause reduced sharpness and chromatic aberration, or fringeing. Olympus knew about these issues and formulated the Four Thirds lens mount diameter, sensor size and distance between mount and sensor to minimise corner shading."
_________________
Yes, ur 7 foot basketballer is a bigger full-frame...but he is not optimized, unlike the 4/3 full frame which is optimized for digital technology. In order for your 135 full frame sensor to be fully optimized, I would imagine that your lens, AND lens mount, would have to be about 2x the size of what it is currently. Clearly, it is not practical. In this kind of situation, u might as well go medium format. So, u shoe horn the 135 full frame technology into the camera body, and market it to death.
Last edited:
It is interesting and amusing to see how many people are so ignorant to the full frame hype.
When Olympus went dslr, they started from ground up and design lens that fill fully their sensor size. From day one they were full frame. Full frame meaning the image projected from the lens if it is 2 cm, it is on 2 cm sensor. (I use 2cm for example and convenient)
Nikon and Canon lenses were all designed in the 35mm format and when they started dslr they were using the same 35mm lenses. On their early days of dslr, most if not all cameras were on crop sensors. Their lens were projecting an 3 cm image on a 2 cm sensor. What most Canonians and Nikonians never thought of was they have been carrying oversize lenses on their undersize body. Of course C and N will never admit to it, they have too many 35mm lenses on the market. To start all over and redesign a body AND THE LENS like Olympus did is too much to turn around. So it is much cheaper to just design A body and fill up the lens' projected space and market it as Full Frame , now that they finally fill up the frame their lens were meant for..hic...hic.
I have to admit that the full frame slogan worked for them, nobody doubt their marketing ability.
However bear in mind in this digital age where I am holding a 32 gig pen drive that just a few years ago can only put in 256 mb. The CD and VCDs have move on to DVDs and now Blurays. Five years from now a 1 cm sensor will capture image that Medium format might envy and that is when the oversize lens will be the 2nd hand sales paradise.
When Olympus went dslr, they started from ground up and design lens that fill fully their sensor size. From day one they were full frame. Full frame meaning the image projected from the lens if it is 2 cm, it is on 2 cm sensor. (I use 2cm for example and convenient)
Nikon and Canon lenses were all designed in the 35mm format and when they started dslr they were using the same 35mm lenses. On their early days of dslr, most if not all cameras were on crop sensors. Their lens were projecting an 3 cm image on a 2 cm sensor. What most Canonians and Nikonians never thought of was they have been carrying oversize lenses on their undersize body. Of course C and N will never admit to it, they have too many 35mm lenses on the market. To start all over and redesign a body AND THE LENS like Olympus did is too much to turn around. So it is much cheaper to just design A body and fill up the lens' projected space and market it as Full Frame , now that they finally fill up the frame their lens were meant for..hic...hic.
I have to admit that the full frame slogan worked for them, nobody doubt their marketing ability.
However bear in mind in this digital age where I am holding a 32 gig pen drive that just a few years ago can only put in 256 mb. The CD and VCDs have move on to DVDs and now Blurays. Five years from now a 1 cm sensor will capture image that Medium format might envy and that is when the oversize lens will be the 2nd hand sales paradise.
Last edited:
You got the wrong example. It is more that my BMW is in 18inch rim and wheel as it is designed, wherelse you are driving an Range Rover fitted with bulldozer wheels.......and then redesign the Range Rover the size of Bull dozer and call full frame.
Last edited:
:sweat: as a senior member, you do know that universally it is understood that FF means 35mm film format dimensions?
Your "$22B income from patent payments alone" is ridiculous. According to reports, Olympus' revenue for 2008 was only around $12.5B. Where's the other 10B?
YOU understand FF as 35 mm film format dimensions ONLY, thanks to the excellent marketing by Canon and Nikon. If u read around, there are other definitions of full frame. The four-thirds sensor is not only a digital full-frame, ie not cropping of lens image on sensor, it is also a full-frame transfer CCD, at least in the E1. You reserve to right to believe Canon marketing, I also reserve the right to believe Olympus marketing, although I think Oly marketing sucks compared to Canon's.
As for your second point, as I had mentioned before, dun reply with rhetoric. If u got information, help me by searching for it to prove or disprove it. As I had mentioned before, this is what I have been told and I am also interested to know the numbers. I could not get the numbers on the internet so far. My only explanation is perhaps there is some confidentiality agreement and it is not something that is disclosed to the public. Sensitive information, one can imagine.
Last edited:
Believe what you want. 99% would disagree with you.
1. Who told you? Someone with correct and verifiable info? Or just some hearsay?
2. In financial reports, income/loss derived from patents/royalties has to be declared, and $22B being such a huge number it's impossible for it to be mysteriously omitted. Pretty sure the taxman wants to know where 22B went.
I guess the 1% includes dpreview.
Anyway, this is a pointless discussion about FF or not, and only time will tell about mirrorless cameras.
I can accept the the British car Jaguar is called Jaguar and is more famous but when you meet the real animal Jaguar please don't deny it is not Jaguar.
Just as you saw some FF brainwashed 7 footer basket ball player telling the shorty Maradona he can't play ball as well as himself. Of course this people live in ignorance never knowing he can play ball better with his feet than the 7 footer with his hands.
Last edited:
It's amazing how these marketing nonsense can get debated over and over. The term full-frame itself is not about superiority. It's a references to a legacy format, which "reduced frame" is defined upon and maintains certain compatibilities to. Its association with (proclaimed) superior imaging capability is only in comparison to these aforementioned "reduced frames". 4/3 doesn't become "full-frame" because Olympus claims so. However, being full-frame or not has nothing to do with it being an excellent format and camera system.
To make a superior system, some "over-engineer" their sensors, others "over-engineer" their lenses. You pick the trade-off point for yourself and pay your hard-earned cash for this sense of having the better tools in hand.
To make a superior system, some "over-engineer" their sensors, others "over-engineer" their lenses. You pick the trade-off point for yourself and pay your hard-earned cash for this sense of having the better tools in hand.
Last edited:
- Status
