Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael Reichmann current stance regarding 4/3?  (Read 12692 times)
RichDesmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2006, 12:51:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...But let's consider something new, like say an 18MP camera with a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor that uses legacy (35mm) lenses with 44mm image circles, all in a relatively conventional DSLR body package...  Now THAT might be something Pros would adopt!

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bingo!! I've been thinking about this very thing, although my idea was for a square 40x40mm sensor. I was going to post and ask if there was some technical reason it wouldn't work. There's no doubt in my mind that sensor prices will drop dramatically over the next 5-8 years. Pixel densities on high end cameras probably won't increase too much, but we should have bigger sensors before too much longer. How about an 80MP 60x60mm MF camera for less than the 5D costs now?? I'm predicting it's appearence at the 2012 PMA.  
Logged
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2006, 01:09:04 PM »
ReplyReply

It'd be cool but then people would be crying and moaning about light falloff even more then they are now.

I think if you gave me a square sensor I'd want the ability to have a switchable mask in the viewfinder as a composition aid for those times you don't want to shoot square.   Shouldn't be an issue though just stick a hideable grid feature in the viewfinder like some Nikons have.

A 40x40mm sensor would probably make for a $10,000 DSLR anytime in the next few years though.

With a sensor that size you could probably develop some really trick Tilt/Shift lenses.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2006, 01:09:46 PM by benInMA » Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2006, 01:55:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bingo!! I've been thinking about this very thing, although my idea was for a square 40x40mm sensor. I was going to post and ask if there was some technical reason it wouldn't work.

Unfortunately 40mm square WON'T work with 35mm full-frame lenses.  These lenses have a 43mm image CIRCLE which will only accomodate a 30mm x 30mm square...

At 4:3 you end up with about a 26mmx34mm frame, and a bit more total area than 24x36.  The 30mm square would generate a bit more total area available, but due to the crop required would give up more than what was gained.  Hence, I feel the 4:3 is the best overall compromise...

If you want 40mm x40mm, you are best off with the current 4:3 39MP MF backs at 37x49.  Since they are just under the full IC of the available MF lenses (roughly 75mm IC's are required for 645 glass and the 39MP back requires about 62mm of IC), they also make use of the sweetest 80% central imaging spot in the glass.  Frankly, it's an almost ideal combination for direct digital capture given the current available selection of cameras and lenses...  

However, in current DSLR form factor, they could give us a 43mm diameter circular sensor and let us choose our composition rectangle, but I think the viewfinder would get rather confusing
« Last Edit: March 01, 2006, 02:03:26 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

RichDesmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2006, 02:39:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Unfortunately 40mm square WON'T work with 35mm full-frame lenses.  These lenses have a 43mm image CIRCLE which will only accomodate a 30mm x 30mm square...

At 4:3 you end up with about a 26mmx34mm frame, and a bit more total area than 24x36.  The 30mm square would generate a bit more total area available, but due to the crop required would give up more than what was gained.  Hence, I feel the 4:3 is the best overall compromise...

If you want 40mm x40mm, you are best off with the current 4:3 39MP MF backs at 37x49.  Since they are just under the full IC of the available MF lenses (roughly 75mm IC's are required for 645 glass and the 39MP back requires about 62mm of IC), they also make use of the sweetest 80% central imaging spot in the glass.  Frankly, it's an almost ideal combination for direct digital capture given the current available selection of cameras and lenses...   

However, in current DSLR form factor, they could give us a 43mm diameter circular sensor and let us choose our composition rectangle, but I think the viewfinder would get rather confusing
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack, had that thought too (the 43mm circular sensor) but the realities of IC manufacturing mean that sensors are going to be rectangular. I do realize that the corners on a 40x40 sensor wouldn't be usable, was thinking the 40x40 would be a pro camera, sold to people who understood that they'd have to crop their image appropriately.
I'd love to not have to be rotating the camera for vertical shots.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2006, 02:48:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
was thinking the 40x40 would be a pro camera, sold to people who understood that they'd have to crop their image appropriately.
I'd love to not have to be rotating the camera for vertical shots.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay, understand what you meant now
Logged

dbell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2006, 04:11:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm still not sold on 4/3s, but it has little do with image quality. I currently use an APS-C camera for anything I intend to print big and I recently got a used Panasonic LC-1 for street shooting (I have plenty of opinions about that camera, but that's material for another thread...). I like the LC-1/Digilux2's manual controls and I'm glad to see that the new Panasonic DSLR shares a lot of that heritage.

The L1 would appeal to me if I liked the lenses available for it. But I don't. I'm NOT looking to replace my APS-C camera or Nikon glass. I'm happy with what those do for me. I WOULD go for a 4/3s sensor with the L1's body design and a few high quality primes (how about a normal and a moderate wide?). That would put the inherent advantages of the smaller sensor to good use (small, light bodies with small, light lenses). If Olympus or Leica were to ship some fast primes in 4/3s format, I'd definitely  be interested, but the Leica zoom that was just introduced is not my idea of an unobstrusive casual/street lens.


--
Daniel Bell
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2006, 04:51:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If someone would release a reasonably price 300 f4 for 4/3rds, I would be happy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sigma has made a stab at filling the less expensive super-telephoto niche by offering their "all-in-one" 50-500mm f/4-6.3 in 4/3 mount. (That's a 100-1000mm, f/8-12.6 35mm equivalent, according to my way of comparing). I wonder if it has enough resolution for 4/3 pixels which are as small as 5.3 microns now, and will probably be under 5 microns later this year.

However, for those who crave primes other than (1) telephotos faster than any zoom available at the same focal length, (2) macros, and (3) fisheyes, look elsewhere. Almost no-one is introducing new prime lenses outside those three categories any more, so the best bet is a system that already has the ones you need, left-over from the 35mm film era.

Pentax is a bit of an exception on DSLR primes, with several small, light, not-so-fast "DA" primes released or planned for its DSLRs: 21/3.2, 40/2.8, 70/2.4, all "pancakes".
« Last Edit: March 01, 2006, 04:52:59 PM by BJL » Logged
Let Biogons be Biogons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2006, 05:05:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
FourThirds easily outperform 35mm film in image quality
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
That is highly debatable. In my opinion, 35mm film exposed in my Hasselblad Xpan and scanned at 4800dpi is considerably more detailed than E-1 RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I haven't found FourThirds to "easily outperform 35mm film".   The 5 or 8 mp incarnations of the FourThirds systems don't measure up to film scanned at even 4000 dpi.  It's no contest with fine grained 100 ISO and lower film.  Further the detail and shapness attainable with the XPan (36x24) or similar rangefinders like Leica and Contax G2, is far and away above what can be had with ANY 6-8 mp camera.  Grain, insignificant at  E-1 5 mp resolutions levels, can be handled very effectively at higher resolution levels (and print sizes) with recent grain reduction software (Neat Image, Noise Ninja -- see for example: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/ndq.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/ndq.shtml[/url] ).  Printed 12x18 images from good film are much more detailed than the E-1 can produce.

Sorry.  There is a lot of hype out there and a lot of people that have bought into the hype but, properly handled, you need a good 10-12 mp sensor to beat a good fine grained film.  400 speed and faster film are less competitive -  but are certainly competitive at the 8mp level.  Digital or FourThirds wins at convenience, speed, and when volume is a consideration, but current incarnations of the FourThirds do not outperform film for image quality (I would include the 6-8mp APS-c sensor cameras in that statement as well).

But I will admit that for most people who print no larger than 11x14 it doesn't make much of a difference.

That's my experience.  Others may see things differently, but I wonder what they are actually looking at.
Logged
dbell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2006, 09:37:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, for those who crave primes other than (1) telephotos faster than any zoom available at the same focal length, (2) macros, and (3) fisheyes, look elsewhere. Almost no-one is introducing new prime lenses outside those three categories any more, so the best bet is a system that already has the ones you need, left-over from the 35mm film era.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right, and there are two problems with this: there may not be lenses available in the focal lengths you need (particularly problematic with wide angles) and the various adapters needed to mount those lenses on 4/3s bodies often leave you without full functionality. I could live with manual focusing, but I'd not want to be limited to stopped-down metering. The lenses I want to use exist for 35mm and APS-C systems; I'd need them to be available for 4/3s before I'd seriously consider it.


--
Daniel Bell
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6938


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2006, 10:30:48 PM »
ReplyReply

For the benefit of Let Biogons be Biogons and others, I HAVE seen A3 prints (and larger) done from images captured with a Canon 20D and L lenses that outperform ASA 100 colour film anyday - in respect of clarity, cleanliness and visible image detail. Much depends on post-processing skill.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Scott_H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2006, 04:51:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sigma has made a stab at filling the less expensive super-telephoto niche by offering their "all-in-one" 50-500mm f/4-6.3 in 4/3 mount. (That's a 100-1000mm, f/8-12.6 35mm equivalent, according to my way of comparing). I wonder if it has enough resolution for 4/3 pixels which are as small as 5.3 microns now, and will probably be under 5 microns later this year.

I am thinking of buying one of those.  I'm less concerned about resolution than I am about autofocus with a 6.3 max aperture.  A 300 mm f4 and a 1.4 tc would be almost as much reach, and lighter.  I think the Bigma is worth a look though.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2006, 12:12:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm less concerned about resolution than I am about autofocus with a 6.3 max aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it is safe, if marginal. Many SLR's (including my E-1) list f/5.6 as the highest minimum f-stop a lens must have in order for AF to work, but in fact there are a number of f/6.3 zooms out there that just slip under the wire. It is only 1/6th of a stop slower!

There is already one f/6.3 zoom for 4/3, the Olympus 18-180 f/3.5-6.3 (which is possibly a rebadged Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 with more honest focal lengths!), so you could check for reports of AF problems with that lens; I have seen no complaints in the forums I read.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2006, 04:17:30 PM by BJL » Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2006, 12:43:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am thinking of buying one of those.  I'm less concerned about resolution than I am about autofocus with a 6.3 max aperture.  A 300 mm f4 and a 1.4 tc would be almost as much reach, and lighter.  I think the Bigma is worth a look though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


From what I've heard, the Bigma is acctually a quite good lens.  There are lots of wildlife guys who swear by it.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 605


« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2006, 07:49:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why Michael would retract his original statement, based on a few sigma lenses, and an overpriced pannie product!

I have to say that in this game if anything is to be learnt its that you dont mess with formats...aka APS film, 110 film...all dead...

4/3 is doomed, it may wriggle and moan a bit, sure its had a minor improvement, but this patient is in intensive care...he may have opened his eyes..but thats it!

4 years ago 4/3 looked ok, now even some say APS-C is on a limited time scale..who knows..

I think Olympus made a huge mistake going 4/3, I dont care for the aspect ratio a whole lot, though sometimes its ok (for non landscapes), leaving that aside, you have a situation where Olympus users were denied affordable lenses (tamron etc), by ignoring the main market..

4/3 is the format that could live as a super budget option, problem is its in denial, so are Olympus, and those viewfinders are not too great either! Gotta be said...

Why pay more for less???
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2006, 12:11:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Barry, may I suggest you visit dpreview forums? The online bar-room brawl that you apparently seek are more available over there.
Logged
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2006, 12:42:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess it's a deviant view, but I'm interested in Olympus, etc., to the extent that I'm attracted to the 4:3 aspect ratio itself.  

A 2:3 aspect ratio involves the eye in a more dynamic sweeping motion (initially L-R, because of our reading habits);  6x6 keeps the eye moving along lines of tension from center to periphery & back.  4.5x6 or 4:3 lives in-between.  

Even if we have a cropping habit, we nevertheless program ourselves to anticipate the proportions we'll see through the viewfinder - a  feedback loop that influences how we see the rectangles that become our photographs.  Sometime I'll get around to trying 4:3 to see if produces an interesting change of perception for me.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 605


« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2006, 06:25:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Barry, may I suggest you visit dpreview forums? The online bar-room brawl that you apparently seek are more available over there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I fail to see why you feel its important to mention this?

Its a matter of opinion nothing else, of course if you have Olympus stuff then fair enough. I dont desire the death of any format, but in this case it would have made more sense to follow the market as such. No bar room brawls needed. Unless of course you dont like freedom of speech.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad