Things you may not know about the 7D.
- Thread starter Flare
- Start date
- Status
UY79 said:
I was referring to DSLRs... Olympus is the one and only 4/3 DSLR system around so the E-1 and E-300 are 4:3 format.... but all the current Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Canon DSLRs are 3:2 aren't they? :dunno:
I'm not sure about digicams... never bothered about them actually...
TME said:I was referring to DSLRs... Olympus is the one and only 4/3 DSLR system around so the E-1 and E-300 are 4:3 format.... but all the current Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Canon DSLRs are 3:2 aren't they? :dunno:
I'm not sure about digicams... never bothered about them actually...
4/3 refers to the type and size of the sensor. It just happens that the sensor is 4:3.
It is technically a better system than APS or FF sensor based DSLRs as it addresses some current issues concerning DSLRs designs. But so far it is becoming more of a Olympus only affair.
Here's some to stuffs to read.
http://www.four-thirds.org
Cheers!
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
but printing in 4:3 would be a problem for the labs i think, dun think there is photo paper for 4:3 as well... den have to crop? no hair or no neck for portraits? 
There's the DSC format prints which are 4:3 in ratio. Lab printing papers are in rolls. The widths are fixed, so just have to vary the lengths to achieve 4:3.
Or what they normally would do is to print normally fitting the photo without distortion to the aspect ratio. This will end up with white spaces on the sides which will be cut later.
Cheers!
Or what they normally would do is to print normally fitting the photo without distortion to the aspect ratio. This will end up with white spaces on the sides which will be cut later.
Cheers!
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
so if they print like using a wat we would use 4R prints, they would get a slightly smaller print? cos the width is the same?
btw do they need to specify before hand that they are printing in 4:3?
btw do they need to specify before hand that they are printing in 4:3?
UY79 said:
I thought because it is 4/3 size the ratio is also 4:3? That's what I thought all along.... :sweat:
I suppose the legacy glass is a very important consideration in the consumer market. Would u ditch all your glass for a entirely new system? The consumer market made up of u and I still decides what stays as the new standard. The pros while they add the hip and pro factor are a smaller factor than the mass market - at least that I how I view it. In time, we might just end up with the current APS-C sensor as standard and design bodies and lenses around it.... and go full frame... that would surely kill the 4/3 system if the full frame sensor becomes affordable when someone comes out with a radically cheaper and more reliable way to lay down the silicon.
UY79 said:
Yes, I understand that after reading the link u posted. Thanks for that!
But as I was saying, u could design your way around the problem... or at least someone just might find a way to do it. If u have a larger sensor, it minimizes the problem. U could also have a circular sensor or a non-flat sensor. U could change the flange to sensor distance in a new body and alter the optics to suit the change. I dun know... there's probably some way out otherwise the 3 major manufacturers Nikon, Canon and Minolta would have joined the 4/3 system enthusiastically if the optical quality were such a problem. None of them have even announced any plans for experimenting on the 4/3 system.
Perhaps there's the bottomline of things to consider, they lose monopoly over high end proprietary and exclusive lenses as the 4/3 is an open system.. a bit like MS versus open source.
TME said:
I don't think what you said is correct to a certain extent. The 4/3 technology is useful only to the standard setter, which is olymplus and to a small extent Kodak.
It is used so they will have a common mounting for all, which in certain sense meaning buying new lenses for a new body. The advantage will only go to Oly as they have the least market share, or I should say virtually zero market share. There is no monoploy over proprietary lenses, each of the camera manufacturer will adhere to their own standard and technology and third party manufacturer can modify it to suit their needs. Some other manufacturer join for the sake of joining like Fuji, but they do not have any camera that adhere to the common mounting technology, reason being lack of lenses and to redesign all the lenses on a restrictive standard is pretty difficult.
Just think the "Open Standard" as one being the minimum requirement which all adhere to, then each company "extend" the standard to suit their own body and in the end you make a mess out of it. Cameras are not Linux vs Microsoft. Microsoft is hogging on to the code of their software. But no one is hogging on the 2/3 standard. Their different mount is a pain, that I agrees.
blurblock said:
It will damage the monopoly because right now if I want Canon's IS system or USM system, I must buy into the Canon system. If the mounts are open source, 3rd party lens manufacturers will swamp the market with their products as they do not need reverse engineer. And would u buy Minolta when a Sigma or a Tamron or a Tokina or a Cosina is like half the price, has everything the Minolta has? It means greater competition and lower prices. And therefore, the current situation is best for the big 3. U gain market share through proprietary systems and u're free to charge pretty much what u want. Competition from 3rd party manufacturers is not that great. That's why Sigma has joined, and so has Oly and Fuji for reasons u point out but none of the 3... why? :think:
TME said:
B'cos they already have millions of lenses out there in the market now.. you won't be happy if N/C/M/P all announced that the lenses you have will not be compatible with future bodies, and you need to repurchase from scratch.
Sigma only "remount" the available APS lenses for 4/3, that are already there for other .. nothing to lose for them.. For Oly? They need to come out with a lens mount anyway.. :bsmilie: For Fuji and Kodak? What mount? They don't even have lenses... they are most happy to sell more CCD and CMOS sensors.
So basically, the so-called "open standard" is no more than Oly's standard.
Interest party should be Panasonic, Sony etc if they want to bite a share of DSLR market.
TME said:
For common mounting, it also means common signalling system, in which it will hinder the technological advancement as compared to current situation. Just think, to create something means giving other systems everything and leaving own system weaken. Patent invention will not be invented, such as Multicoating, Auto Focus etc etec .... Since everything will be required to be opened, it will only benefit the lasier ones and steal from the more hardworking.
Take for example, the creation of USM where the motor moves a lot faster, the signal is only meant for Canon system. If there is a common mount, Canon will see no reason to research into such system. E
verything will be slow. Even as in current situation, some older / third party lenses cannot work properly with newer bodies due to upgrades in information that is not found in older lenses, causing lenses to be rechipped.Even in current state, I choose Sigma 105 Macro over Minolta 100 Macro, not because Sigma is cheaper, but it suits my purpose very well. I am not against common standard, infact I am a stunch believer of Open Source Items such as Software. However, on certain stand, unlike software which general people can write and share, hardware creation is an entire different story. Who would want to invest billions in research just so other people may steal their technology legally? If they do not publish their new standard and signalling method, they can't mount the same mount, or heck, it will mount but give errors every other frame.
The reason why Oly / Fuji / Sigma joined the 4:3 common mount initiative is because a. they are the underdogs, they can't get any worse as compared to current situation, they may even regain some lost ground. b. They do not have new invention to share, but if the bigger researchers join in the 4:3 standard, they have everything to gain, take for example, I would not need to pay a bomb to use USM technology, no research needed, just let the suckers do the research and I reap the benefits.
Like you said, if the bigger researcher who are more dedicated to create new things join the 4:3 common mounting standard, all will be equal, which idiot will pump in billions to do research?
A common standard is benefical to the end users, but in long run, it hinder the development of the cameras. Who will be the ultimate winners? The companies that does the CMOS / CCD and the companies that sits around to wait for other people to invent so they can leech.
Now ..... basic answer on which Sigma join ..... How many Sigma Specific Mount camera or lenses are out there, as compared to N/C/M or even Pentax. If they really want common standard, they should use existing common Open Sourced Mount, namely the Pentax K mount, rather then inventing something, create a big fanfare but with little to offer but a lot to gain. If oly is really keen on open standard, and they use the pentax K mount, do you think their Zuiko lenses will sell, since it is very much more expensive then pentax existing lenses.
Magnus Wedberg
New Member
TME said:
Exactly -- most features of the 4/3 system can easily be recreated within the limits of a current mount, if a manufacturer wished to do so. They don't, as legacy compatibility is a huge thing for most consumers -- remember that Minolta's RD-3000 flopped, and it had largely the same features (but a APS-sized "sensing area"). I have always said, and I stand by it, that the 4/3 system is an evolutionary dead-end -- they will always, given similar sensor technology, have the disadvantage of smaller photosites, meaning higher noise for a given resolution.
- Status
Similar threads
