Four-Thirds Systems

A while back Dr Mustard stirred things up a bit by mentioning his interest in the Leica D-lux 3. Now there is PanaLeica offering (Panasonic DMC-L1 and Leica Digilux 3) which has interchangable lenses as well as the five Olympuses (E1, E500, E300, E330, and in Europe the E400). In the meantime Sigma is offering some 4/3 lenses as well as Leica. So support is growing. There are certainly some lenses that are pro quality. The Olympus 7-14mm is certainly UW friendly as is their 50mm macro. The Lecia 14-50 is an IS lens. The first I think.

So what do people think of this system? Certainly a niche area. I recently sold off all my old FD kit and I am somewhat drawn to the system as the lenses are small which given that alot of my top shooting is in remote areas small is good.

BTW http://www.four-thirds.org/en is a website that is a cooperative between the players.

History is littered with formats which, whilst perfectly logical and even forward thinking at the time, failed because of very entrenched existing ones. The situation may have changed with digital but I suspect that Canon & Nikon represent main stream thinking and their formats are the ones most likely to survive. My first camera was an old Kodak 828, now long gone and even in my childhood one which it could be difficult to find film for, and since then there has been 126, 110, discfilm, APS, and no doubt many more. Each was a part of the photographic evolutionary process and many excellent images were no doubt taken on these formats. Nevertheless, 35mm remained a dominant format which still endures even today, and now as a digital format. Perhaps I am too conservative in my thinking, but when changing format represents a substantial investment which it might not be possible to recoup if that format fails to find sufficient adherents, you need to make a careful and balanced judgement about the advisability of buying into a newish system. Whilst the physical format is new its ration is that of 6 x 4.5cm medium format which is a pleasant ratio to work with - but do see the 'cropping' posts too!

final print shape and cropping debate aside....

I'd vote for a square sensor any day, especially if we could push a button and get a 2:3 vertical or horizontal crop if we want (no more rotating camera/repositioning of strobes). Sure you could just have square all the time, but the h/v rectangle option would save file size if you knew what you wanted at time of capture. Our lenses project circles, so a square in the middle of it makes sense.

The other format that I think will get adopted is 16:9 , as we start to show stills more often on TV and widescreen monitors become the norm. It is a beautiful shape.

Think the APS/advantix film concept with the various formats it offered. Another hit from Mr Kodak –not– it offerred 4/3, 2:3 and 16:9 and a wider pano I think.

darren

............

I'd vote for a square sensor any day, especially if we could push a button and get a 2:3 vertical or horizontal crop if we want (no more rotating camera/repositioning of strobes)..............

yes, .........but I'd vote for a round, concave sensor........programmable or interchangeable........to a shape similar to the lens......

then all light passing through the aperture would have an equal distance to travel to the capture device.......

I wonder if such a system would also correct fringing (CA), barrel and pin cushioning distortion.......along with removing the need for major repositioning of strobes as mentioned when going from landscape to portrait............

btw, microscopes, telescopes, binoculars..........all share round lens shapes with the camera.........yet it's the camera that produces an image with corners............

cropping to taste to creative preferences would dictate final composition..........

Olympus has a questionable track record in this respect. The old Olympus OM SLR was a fine camera, but alas, Olympus orphanned it and the lens mount. When they did. all third party support died too.

I love the square sensor idea -- so outside the box, it's in the box. This would require very few lens/sensor mods, and really seems quite reasonable to this nerd. Memory is so cheap now (circa 70 us for 4gb of 150X cf) that I don't even care about preselecting crops. High time that (digital) sensing media got in tune with the radially symmetric geometry of the lens! EDIT: and no need to pivot the camera and stobe arms!

A round, flat sensor also sounds good ... tailored to whatever diameter the manufacturer wants. It would require clever layout, though, to get a good yield from the cylindrical blanks. This, too, seems reasonable -- at least for high end cameras.

A concave sensor, though, would require a whole new school of lens design, and would be difficult to fabricate: a fascinating speculation.

All that said, the draconian 2x crop of the 4/3 sensor does not bode well...

Fun stuff.

Chris

I also like the square sensor idea although I won't hold my breath for it coming on the market. If they do they probably find some nice marketing term for like "the 16/16" format

The only gear I know of that is optimized for the classical format are some (most?) strobes that produce a cone of light that is wider than high. That's easy to fix and if you have two strobes you can put one horizontal and one vertical.

Bart

The only gear I know of that is optimized for the classical format are some (most?) strobes that produce a cone of light that is wider than high. That's easy to fix and if you have two strobes you can put one horizontal and one vertical.

Well picture frames for one thing. Last year in Switzerland over the holidays I was helping my brother and sisters-in-law pick a picture frame for a photo shot with an Oly and they just couldn't understand why they couldn't find a frame to fit the photo. No use explaining it either...

I really like the idea of a square sensor. This would be the perfect way to perpetuate the megapixel race without making the sensors (and whole camera) significantly bigger than full frame. It would be really open up the creativity of photography if we routinely took 16:9, square, or even circular photographs, not to mention the ease of shooting portrait in landscape position.

Of course this can all be done in postprocessing today. With 10, 12 or even 16mp there are plenty to crop away.

going back up to Paul's post on closed, limited formats... teh 4/3 system is open, and the last year was very good for it, when finally not one but many companies other than olympus finally joined it. It really seemed to turn the corner and become a real System and one that would last.

The zuiko olympus glass is great and always scores very highly in lens tests and in qualitative eyeball print quality.

I like my E1 a lot. Great color. Weatherproofing is a great feature. The sonic dustbuster really works. The 7-14 is a great lens. Many friends are getting the E330 with live view and like it. PMA in march should bring a lot more from Olympus.

Personally I really like more rectangular images. I don't believe there is anything wrong with 4:3, it is just a personal preference.

My favourite format is the 35mm film size of 3:2, although I also like 1.614:1 (PHI) and 4:2 for panoramas.

When I shot my hasselblad underwater I enjoyed the square sensor, and was pleasantly surprised how many underwater subjects actually suit this format. That said when I asked other photographers and editors for advice on how best to compose with medium format they just said "put the subject small and in the middle and then the client can crop the image into either a horizontal or a vertical". Seemed to rather undermine the point of being a photographer to me.

Alex

Seemed to rather undermine the point of being a photographer to me.

 

Alex

i like your comment there..

That said when I asked other photographers and editors for advice on how best to compose with medium format they just said "put the subject small and in the middle and then the client can crop the image into either a horizontal or a vertical". Seemed to rather undermine the point of being a photographer to me.

Alex

That's what's been one of the best things since we began to supply digital files (scans first, now captures) rather than trannies to clients - only give what you want, no matter what shape it was shot on...Too bad international paper size proportions (A4 etc) don't match any of our standard formats...

The other advantage of shooting on a square is perspective control. Being able to compose a horizontal image at either the top or bottom of frame means you can keep the film plane and subject plane more parallel than you can on a rectangular sensor that is cropping in the middle of the image circle. Effect is like having a lens with some "shift" capability.

i must say i really like the 16:9 of my HD video a lot better than the 4:3 of my old one... more pleasing to my eye

Seemed to rather undermine the point of being a photographer to me.

 

Alex

Tht is the dilemma of every professional - photographer or otherwise. The client will have his own opinion and you cannot stop that!

It would be nice if photographers could be venerated as artists but even Michelangelo had to deal with the Pope! Nothing written and published has not been subject to an editor's input (or out-take).

I am doing a book at the moment. I was commissioned by a book packager that has an editor. The British publisher and the American publisher both have editors. They have each stated things like: I have never heard of stinging plankton/Surely no-one would want to dive in shark-infested waters?/It would be very inadvisable to dive on a wreck of a ship that was sunk by an atomic bomb. See what I mean?

Back to formats. Most magazines are A shape. If you shoot a 35mm shape (2:3) it will be cropped by someone, even if it is used full page or DPS. It's a sad fact of life that everyone involved in the process of bringing pictures to the public will want to prove the value of their input (or interfere!).

In the computer age, everyone has the opportunity to "improve" your pictures unless you simply make art prints and sell them in frames.

I like my E1 a lot. Great color. Weatherproofing is a great feature. The sonic dustbuster really works. The 7-14 is a great lens. Many friends are getting the E330 with live view and like it. PMA in march should bring a lot more from Olympus.

Ah but the question really becomes not only Olympus but also PanaLeica. They have a body and 2 two lens. Will PanaLeica continue to let Olympus take the lead or pony up some more? I know that the E1 will be updated with something ?? But what else will happen? I am also going to guess that the 4/3 system is probably more popular in Asia where it seems Olympus is more popular onthe 35mm front.

BTW Hugyfot has anounced that they will be making a housing the PanaLeica. It due out early next year. I asked about preliminary photos and details but nothing is firm yet.

Edit - PanaLeica will have some more lenses

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/im...9-4049-2-1.html

Seems to me that the world is composed of two types of people: the sheep, those that place more importance in "following the crowd" and the goats, those that value "individuality, innovation and advancement".

Life as a goat is not always easy, sometimes lonely, and, occasionally, you find that there is big price to pay for not sticking with the crowd. But the upside is that you will often discover new and better ways of doing things. You'll find a way of doing something new that'll stamp your mark on history.

In the computer world, we have Windoze users (sheep) and Apple users (goats). Over the years, Apple users have had some nervous moments when it looked like their platform would disappear. They've sometimes had to do without some software and computer games. But they've benefited by a much more usable, efficient, reliable system that enabled them to do things that the sheep could not. Even today, Windoze still can not accurately render colours...

In the world of photography, the sheep always pick Nikon and Canon. Honest products but almost never innovative. Olympus, on the other hand, has always been a risk taker, pushing innovation and making radical decisions. Not all of their innovation worked out and, at times, their strategy has wobbled about. But look at the features that has come out of their innovation.

Most of the discussion in this thread has focused on the relative dimensions of the 4/3rds system, no doubt prompted by its very name. But, if you study the concept closely, the dimensions are one of the least significant break-throughs. Lens coverage (sharpness from edge to edge), open standards, lens data transmission and camera body size are much more important factors. Throw in the self-cleaning sensor, the ergonomic layout and the dual storage media and you've got a very viable system.

Maybe the 4/3rds system will not become mainstream. But, how relevant is that. Leave the mainstream to the sheep. As long as the buyer can keep the system functioning for a reasonable equipment life time, the innovations will justify the investment.

Regards

Peter

hehehe....

you know you are inviting comments about bein an old goat eh?

hehehe....

 

you know you are inviting comments about bein an old goat eh?

I have to confess to certain goat-like attributes.

But I've gotta take umbrage at that "old" business...

"In the world of photography, the sheep always pick Nikon and Canon"

It could already be argued that Canon users are the goats if you go on the PC percentage users vs Apple percentage users and apply it to underwater photographers! But seriously you have to look at the 4/3 advantages/disadvantages and I see nothing to fundamentally give 4/3 users an underwater advantage over either existing Nikon or Canon systems. But if you like the 4/3 then I see nothing wrong with it either. But long term I would still say that it is unlikely to be as good an investment in terms of trade in values for upgrading - which may or may not bother you. Choice is predominantly a good thing isn't it?

Hi Peter,

Interesting point of view. Olympus would like you to believe that they are the only innovative DSLR company - that's their sales line. But it's not true. Canon invented IS, ultrasonic focusing, etc. What has olympus invented - a smaller squarer sensor. This is supposed to result in better photos and smaller camera bodies, but has this actually been the case?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Cheers

James