Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi, all,

I'm just trying to work out whether I should be waiting for more to happen
on the four-thirds front or whether the format is dead. I know Olympus have
released cameras and that there are some lenses, but I can't find anything
on the Panasonic, FujiFilm or Kodak internet sites that gives me real hope.
Four thirds sounds like a good idea, but so did Beta video once (and 8-track
audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and '70s). What are
everyone's feelings about the future of this format camera / lens?

Thanks,
Grant.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi Grant.

I can't predict the future, or know what decisions are being made in faraway
Tokyo boardrooms, but I can tell you I had enough confidence in the 4/3rds
system to buy an Olympus E-1 and lenses a couple of months ago. I'm quite
pleased with the system's performance.

Rob

-------------------------

"Grant Ashby" wrote ...

> I'm just trying to work out whether I should be waiting for more to happen
> on the four-thirds front or whether the format is dead. I know Olympus
> have released cameras and that there are some lenses, but I can't find
> anything on the Panasonic, FujiFilm or Kodak internet sites that gives me
> real hope. Four thirds sounds like a good idea, but so did Beta video once
> (and 8-track audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and
> '70s). What are everyone's feelings about the future of this format
> camera / lens?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks, Rob. That's encouraging. I had a further search through this group
after downloading another 4000 or so headers and found one that said the
Panasonic Z20K and others are 4/3, but their specs don't mention this
system, so I'm still confused. Panasonic's spec page says that their sensor
is a 1/2.5" CCD, which I would have thought was different from 4/3.
:-( Olympus certainly seem to be driving the standard.

Grant.

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:TLThe.1362089$Xk.632907@pd7tw3no...
> Hi Grant.
>
> I can't predict the future, or know what decisions are being made in
> faraway Tokyo boardrooms, but I can tell you I had enough confidence in
> the 4/3rds system to buy an Olympus E-1 and lenses a couple of months ago.
> I'm quite pleased with the system's performance.
>
> Rob
>
> -------------------------
>
> "Grant Ashby" wrote ...
>
>> I'm just trying to work out whether I should be waiting for more to
>> happen on the four-thirds front or whether the format is dead. I know
>> Olympus have released cameras and that there are some lenses, but I can't
>> find anything on the Panasonic, FujiFilm or Kodak internet sites that
>> gives me real hope. Four thirds sounds like a good idea, but so did Beta
>> video once (and 8-track audio cartridges for those who can remember the
>> '60s and '70s). What are everyone's feelings about the future of this
>> format camera / lens?
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Grant.

I'll tell you why I think the 4/3 system is destined to stick around. Many
companies make point and shoot style digital cameras, and would love to get
into the DSLR game (Panasonic and Sony come to mind). What's stopping them
is they'd have to, from the very onset, offer several lenses and other
accessories along with whatever camera bodies they introduce. That's a bit
much for an SLR maker just starting out, no matter how big their company is.
It makes better sense for them to join an existing standard, where they
could offer their new camera, a handful of their own lenses, and users could
fill in the gaps with equipment from other system partners. I believe this
is what Olympus (and a few other companies) were banking on when they set
out the 4/3 standard.

Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

A very good point and even more reassuring. Thanks for your insight, Rob.

Grant.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 00:56:41 GMT, "Grant Ashby"
<GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU> wrote:

>Hi, all,
>
>I'm just trying to work out whether I should be waiting for more to happen
>on the four-thirds front or whether the format is dead. I know Olympus have
>released cameras and that there are some lenses, but I can't find anything
>on the Panasonic, FujiFilm or Kodak internet sites that gives me real hope.
>Four thirds sounds like a good idea, but so did Beta video once (and 8-track
>audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and '70s). What are
>everyone's feelings about the future of this format camera / lens?
>
>Thanks,
>Grant.
>

The one tantalizing possibility is that they may be able to release
hyper-fast long lenses because of the sensor size.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Grant Ashby <GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU> wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> I'm just trying to work out whether I should be waiting for more to happen
> on the four-thirds front or whether the format is dead. I know Olympus have
> released cameras and that there are some lenses, but I can't find anything
> on the Panasonic, FujiFilm or Kodak internet sites that gives me real hope.
> Four thirds sounds like a good idea, but so did Beta video once (and 8-track
> audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and '70s). What are
> everyone's feelings about the future of this format camera / lens?

If you want the stuff that's unique to the camera, and the accessories
exist to accomplish what you want to do, then get it. You can sell it
later if you need to.

Beta tapes are still watchable (I have a small collection of LaserDiscs,
myself), and the camera you choose won't lose any functionality, either.
Kind of like my old Pentax lenses that were a big part of why I got the
*ist DS. :-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> writes:

> I'll tell you why I think the 4/3 system is destined to stick
> around. Many companies make point and shoot style digital cameras,
> and would love to get into the DSLR game (Panasonic and Sony come to
> mind). What's stopping them is they'd have to, from the very onset,
> offer several lenses and other accessories along with whatever
> camera bodies they introduce. That's a bit much for an SLR maker
> just starting out, no matter how big their company is. It makes
> better sense for them to join an existing standard, where they could
> offer their new camera, a handful of their own lenses, and users
> could fill in the gaps with equipment from other system partners. I
> believe this is what Olympus (and a few other companies) were
> banking on when they set out the 4/3 standard.

I was very hopeful when I heard of the concept initially. But I
notice that, right now, situation is that I can buy lenses from at
least 4 manufacturers and bodies from at least 3 for my "Nikon"
system, but so far as I can tell only one of each for the "open" 4/3
system. This is not too encouraging.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Grant Ashby wrote:
> Thanks, Rob. That's encouraging. I had a further search through
> this group after downloading another 4000 or so headers and found one
> that said the Panasonic Z20K and others are 4/3, but their specs
> don't mention this system, so I'm still confused. Panasonic's spec
> page says that their sensor is a 1/2.5" CCD, which I would have
> thought was different from 4/3. :-( Olympus certainly seem to be
> driving the standard.

Grant,

The Panasonic FZ20 is not a camera with interchangeable lenses, nor is it
a 4/3 system camera. It does have an f/2.8 Leica image-stabilised zoom
lens covering 36 - 432mm focal length, and would make an excellent
addition as a standaby camera for a DSLR outfit. Or get the FZ5 with very
similar capabilities and only weighing 12oz.

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I took my wife's FZ15 (4mp version) out with my Olympus E-1 for an
early morning photoshoot around the coast last saturday. Now I love the
FZ15, but the E-1 was light years ahead in every way except for
compactness. In spite of it's size however, it was far easier to handle
than the FZ. In the bright low light I could barely find the subject to
compose a photo with the FZ, and the viewfinder is next to useless. The
E-1 has beautiful balance and a nice bright viewfinder, and after a
couple of years using consumer digitals, I wish I had gone the DSLR way
earlier. The pictures I did manage with the Panasonic cam out really
well, but the E-1 in raw also produced superb images.
It seems Panasonic are collaborating with Olympus to produce DSLR's
soon, and this will be 4/3rds and something to look forward to.
Grant, go to the DP Review site and look in on the Olympus DSLR Forum.
You will find all you want there,
DonB

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I thought I might get flamed for my
naivety or by those who feel contempt for the four thirds concept, but all
of the responses (to date, anyway) have carried sound ideas for further
thought. I appreciate it. (It's a bit embarrassing that I got the
Panasonic model name wrong, and that I didn't notice it didn't have
interchangeable lenses - I did think it was strange that they didn't talk
about lenses).

Perhaps the upside is that four thirds probably will have a lot to offer the
low-end enthusiast amateur into the future, and that the standard probably
means that investment in equipment now should continue to be useable with
new cameras and bodies into the future, even if the current ones lack
features that are still to be developed.

Regards,
Grant.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <ddShe.4062$E7.3017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU says...
> Hi, all,
>
> I'm just trying to work out whether I should be waiting for more to happen
> on the four-thirds front or whether the format is dead. I know Olympus have
> released cameras and that there are some lenses, but I can't find anything
> on the Panasonic, FujiFilm or Kodak internet sites that gives me real hope.
> Four thirds sounds like a good idea, but so did Beta video once (and 8-track
> audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and '70s). What are
> everyone's feelings about the future of this format camera / lens?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant.
>
>
>

I wouldn't (didn't)wait.

I fooled around with buying an OLY Evolt because of the self cleaning feature
(I tend to shoot in a terribly dusty/dirty environment).

I got to use an Evolt for a week, then a Drebel, and a '20.

The results spoke for themselves.

The images even from the lowly, out of date Rebel were cleaner, and sharper
out of camera than the Evolt. (when using a good "L" series lens).


Since the Evolt is prety much the Flagship of the 4/3 system, I took a pass.
I need to be out taking pictures, not waiting around to see if they come up
with a useable camera.

Also, there is a plethora of available lenses for Canon, Nikon, et al, but
the lens choice for 4/3 is limited and VERY expensive (for a lens you can
only use on ONE camera.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Grant Ashby wrote:

> audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and '70s). What are
> everyone's feelings about the future of this format camera / lens?

I don't know "everyone's" feeling, but Stacey will reply with all of the
virtues of it while possible taking a kick at the 35mm mount compliant
systems.

My opinion is that it is indeed a good system with the risk of long term
limitation due to the smaller sensor size. It's a limitation in the
signal/noise ratio as pixel densities increase. Further, the promise of
cheaper lenses for given effective FL has so far not borne out.

Another poster recently stated, that in the digital world, full sized
sensors (36 x 24mm) are the digital "medium format", and that cropped
sensors (1.5x ish) are the digital "35mm". A good analogy that might
prove to be the reality as time marches on. Certainly cameras like the
Canon 1Ds II are encroaching on some MF work.

The 4/3 system, being the smallest, and locked to that size, raises the
long term question on noise as pixel counts go up (whether or not that
is reasonable, that is the cheapest marketing gimick the OEM's have).

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> My opinion is that it is indeed a good system with the risk of long term
> limitation due to the smaller sensor size. It's a limitation in the
> signal/noise ratio as pixel densities increase. Further, the promise of
> cheaper lenses for given effective FL has so far not borne out.

Also, it uses the 4:3 aspect ratio, which is enough to lose any interest
from me right off the bat; that's definitely my least favorite shape for a
picture.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>My opinion is that it is indeed a good system with the risk of long term
>>limitation due to the smaller sensor size. It's a limitation in the
>>signal/noise ratio as pixel densities increase. Further, the promise of
>>cheaper lenses for given effective FL has so far not borne out.
>
>
> Also, it uses the 4:3 aspect ratio, which is enough to lose any interest
> from me right off the bat; that's definitely my least favorite shape for a
> picture.

The ISO 216 "A" proportions would have been ideal for cropless shot to
print photography (as I've said a few times). The proportion has an
aspect ratio roughly between 4/3 and 35mm's 3:2. (SQRT(2):1).

Probably "innefficient" from a digital design POV, hence not used.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.