Four thirds

[Kalvaer]

Claire has a Tamron 70-300 Macro, But I was able to get better close ups with the kit lens than using the macro function on the Tamron (It was also harder on the roof and ladder with the bigger lens), Maybe I should get the extension tubes and try it.

I see Cameralabs suggest a Canon MP-E65 f/2.8 1-5 x Macro, but the pricing is pretty steep and they say the same

And with the Oly.. I've always loved them. The 4/3rds system is also tempting, and the built in wireless flash, but as mentioned previously With everyone in my close family now owning Canon's, it is getting hard to go that route. This review was also really great for me, and the video tour as well. But it still a bit pricy here. SA camera does have a nice dual lens bundle up though, which wants to burn a hole in my credit card ( http://www.sacamera.co.za/productdetail/OLYE520DBL/Olympus-E520-14-42mm-and-40-150mm-Kit.html )

[edit] Oh and I also already have Olyumpus XD memory cards which is a bonus, But the E520 now uses both XD and Compact Flash.

 

[bwana]

Claire has a Tamron 70-300 Macro, But I was able to get better close ups with the kit lens than using the macro function on the Tamron (It was also harder on the roof and ladder with the bigger lens), Maybe I should get the extension tubes and try it.

I see Cameralabs suggest a Canon MP-E65 f/2.8 1-5 x Macro, but the pricing is pretty steep and they say the same

And with the Oly.. I've always loved them. The 4/3rds system is also tempting, and the built in wireless flash, but as mentioned previously With everyone in my close family now owning Canon's, it is getting hard to go that route. This review was also really great for me, and the video tour as well. But it still a bit pricy here. SA camera does have a nice dual lens bundle up though, which wants to burn a hole in my credit card ( http://www.sacamera.co.za/productdetail/OLYE520DBL/Olympus-E520-14-42mm-and-40-150mm-Kit.html )

[edit] Oh and I also already have Olyumpus XD memory cards which is a bonus, But the E520 now uses both XD and Compact Flash.

Why? If anything I'd like a larger sensor. iirc your talking of a difference of about 100mm2.

 

[Kalvaer]

Why? If anything I'd like a larger sensor. iirc your talking of a difference of about 100mm2.

Its not needed with 4/3rds IMHO, remember the size of the current sensors and the lens are all based on the 35mm film plane and all lenses work on that "ideal". 4/3rds was redesigned completely with the new sensors in mind instead of relying on the the older film plane. Most monitors/Tv's and so on are also 4/3rds so displaying on them is my better. The fact that you can use any 4/3rds lens on any 4/3rds camera also means you save money in the long run with glass

 

[bwana]

Its not needed with 4/3rds IMHO, remember the size of the current sensors and the lens are all based on the 35mm film plane and all lenses work on that "ideal". 4/3rds was redesigned completely with the new sensors in mind instead of relying on the the older film plane. Most monitors/Tv's and so on are also 4/3rds so displaying on them is my better. The fact that you can use any 4/3rds lens on any 4/3rds camera also means you save money in the long run with glass

More pixels on a smaller sensor tends to lead to more noise - how do they counter that? I dont see how that tiny (relatively speaking) sensor is going to hold its own against the larger ones.

As far as lenses go its a fair point however it only makes a difference if you change from one 4/3 maker to another and they dont seem to be lining up to adopt the format. Meanwhile I can use my EF canon glass on any canon - film or digital - made in the last 30 years.

There are also plenty of mount adapters available so if I wanted to I could probably use my Pentax or Minolta glass on my Canon.

Maybe it's just my perception but arent most of the TV and monitor manufacturers moving away from the square sets in favour of widescreen?

 

[Kalvaer]

More pixels on a smaller sensor tends to lead to more noise - how do they counter that?

You dont.. Its one of the down sides I know. But we have already seen in the last few years how much noise reduction has been done in sensors.. in another 5 years.. who knows?

I also wont need convertors to swop camera's.. and of course the fact that I can essentially use my existing legacy glass is a bonus. I dont even want to check up on how much a 400mm lens will cost now days

[edit]PS: Currently though with everyone I know owning canon's.. Its become more of a "want" to have, than a need to have :/[/edit]

 

[bwana]

You dont.. Its one of the down sides I know. But we have already seen in the last few years how much noise reduction has been done in sensors.. in another 5 years.. who knows?

I also wont need convertors to swop camera's.. and of course the fact that I can essentially use my existing legacy glass is a bonus. I dont even want to check up on how much a 400mm lens will cost now days

Apart from Leica, Olympus and Panasonic who else is planning on joining the consortium to make bodies for the glass?

 

[Kalvaer]

Apart from Leica, Olympus and Panasonic who else is planning on joining the consortium to make bodies for the glass?

No clue... But if I'm stubborn and stay with Olympus then I wont have a problem I will admit though I have been having a lot of fun with my wifes Canon.

 

[bwana]

No clue... But if I'm stubborn and stay with Olympus then I wont have a problem I will admit though I have been having a lot of fun with my wifes Canon.

But then if you're stubborn you can stay with any manufacturer and not have a problem

What Canon does she have?

 

[Kalvaer]

I dont see how that tiny (relatively speaking) sensor is going to hold its own against the larger ones.

I think that image is wrong.. At least from what I have just read, granted not by much though

From Olympus: http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7045.htm
(they also have some nice reading on the sensors and how they work better with the new lenses compared to conventional 35mm which works incorrectly on modern sensors)

Four Thirds is a reference to the size of the image sensor. The image sensor for Four Thirds cameras is what is commonly referred to as a 4/3 type or 4/3 type sensor. These describe the type of sensor not the actual size of the light sensitive area, which is normally much smaller
The sensor measures approximately 22.3mm diagonally, not four-thirds of an inch, which would be about 33.87mm. Traditionally, the nominal size of image-sensing devices has been based on a method of calculation that was introduced when vacuum image-sensing tubes were first invented.
At the time, the outer diameter of these early 'vidicon' tubes was used to indicate their size. Unfortunately, this convention has remained despite the many advances in imaging technology that have since been made, and so the designation, "a four-thirds-inch sensor," can be a source of confusion. For this reason, many people now prefer to use the word "type" instead of "inch" when discussing the size of digital image sensors.

PS: She has the 400D

 

[bwana]

I think that image is wrong.. At least from what I have just read, granted not by much though

From Olympus: http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7045.htm
(they also have some nice reading on the sensors and how they work better with the new lenses compared to conventional 35mm which works incorrectly on modern sensors)



PS: She has the 400D

Why? What's wrong with the image?

 

[Kalvaer]

Why? What's wrong with the image?

Diagonal length shown on wiki is 21.6 I said it wasn't by much.

Here are the images from Oly about whats wrong with using older glass on modern sensors

Compared to their telecentric lenses:

Which is why I think they can get away with much smaller sensors, and still produce the same quality as "larger" sensors

 

[bwana]

PS: She has the 400D

I can see what the problem is - I have two of them myself

 

[Kalvaer]

I can see what the problem is - I have two of them myself

Now you understand my dilemma, I really "want" the Oly, but her 400D makes it feel like it would be a waste

 

[bwana]

Now you understand my dilemma, I really "want" the Oly, but her 400D makes it feel like it would be a waste

Get another and build up a lens collection with her (that she cant moan about).

EDIT - while you're at it get yourself a marginally better camera

 

[koffiejunkie]

Diagonal length shown on wiki is 21.6 I said it wasn't by much.

Here are the images from Oly about whats wrong with using older glass on modern sensors

Compared to their telecentric lenses:

Which is why I think they can get away with much smaller sensors, and still produce the same quality as "larger" sensors

This makes no sense to me. Are they saying that their lenses don't centre the image properly?

From what I've read the only problem with using old lenses on the digital bodies has to do with the reflective properties of the sensor, which causes some more light to bounce around between the sensor and the back element on the lens. Modern lenses have extra coatings to reduce or eliminate this.

Now you understand my dilemma, I really "want" the Oly, but her 400D makes it feel like it would be a waste

Maybe get her an Oly too then?

 

[Kalvaer]

This makes no sense to me. Are they saying that their lenses don't centre the image properly?

The first image is what happens when you use a normal lens designed for 35mm film on digital camera's, Which is pretty much all lenses not 4/3rds

The details of the numbers in the top frame as as follows:
1) Reflection onto neighbouring pixels
2) Crosstalk between neighbouring pixels
3) Loss of brightness since some of the light cannot be captured by the sensor.
These effects reduce the signal to a lower signal to noise ratio and poor colour
reproduction.

The second is with the new redesigned 4/3rd lenses, Mainly at the edges, which is why 4/3rds is known to have much better edge-to-edge colour, clarity and brightness.



I like your idea of getting her an Oly as well I was planning on getting her the E420, but then her Dad bought her the 400D for Christmas, so now it would be a waste

 

[bwana]

The first image is what happens when you use a normal lens designed for 35mm film on digital camera's, Which is pretty much all lenses not 4/3rds

Most lens manufacturers also make lenses specially designed for crop sensors - the 18-55 EF-s that came with your 400D for example wont even fit on a full frame body.

 

[koffiejunkie]

The first image is what happens when you use a normal lens designed for 35mm film on digital camera's, Which is pretty much all lenses not 4/3rds...

OK, I get that in the picture the blue bubbly part on the left is the microlenses on the sensor surface. Telecentric would be better, except that in this image:

the incoming light isn't parallel to the axis of the lens, so they're not representing a telecentric lens. Furthermore, nothing stops them from angling the microlenses slightly to compensate for the way the surface breaks the light (I believe this is what Canon, Nikon etc do anyway), so the whole thing sounds more like a sales gimmick to me.

Maybe I'm missing something else?

 

[Kalvaer]

I think if it was a sales gimmick it would of been crushed long time ago, Also not sure at all about how they angle the lenses, but I do know that all the reviews agree that the 4/3rds has much better edge to edge clarity? I think its more along the lines of the 4/3rds are more telecentric than normal lenses. The light would have to be "bent" though no matter what in order to strike the sensor. Otherwise the sensor would have to be the exact same size as the glass, Which would push costs of everything through the roof. The above images are zoomed in. Here are the normal views which might explain it more:

Normal Lens on CCD:

4/3rds Lens on CCD:

Most lens manufacturers also make lenses specially designed for crop sensors - the 18-55 EF-s that came with your 400D for example wont even fit on a full frame body.

Now this is essentially where I lose the plot I understand all of the issues with cropping, but understand it as follows. In order to get a 50mm as per conventional 35mm standards, you would have to multiple the new measurement by the crop factor. IE: with a cropped sensor of 1.6, a 31.25 would be the same as 50mm on 35mm film? (Still trying to figure how how this effects DOV 100%)

So on my wifes camera, the 18-55 lens is essentially a 28.8 - 88 lens by old 35mm standards. This is what allows us to use smaller lenses than previously. And is also the reason why the 4/3rds system, can go even smaller due to its 2x crop factor? Or did I lose it completely???

With regards to the body and the new EF-s Lens.. that I think is why the 4/3rds was developed. As a way to standardise the whole process, where it wouldn't make a difference and that all lenses would be compatible. There is allowance for bigger sensor sizes in the standard though, so they could also be increased later as technology increases to allow better designed sensors

PS: Bwana.. think i've dragged this way OT Could you maybe split this into its own thread

 

[koffiejunkie]

I think if it was a sales gimmick it would of been crushed long time ago, Also not sure at all about how they angle the lenses, but I do know that all the reviews agree that the 4/3rds has much better edge to edge clarity? I think its more along the lines of the 4/3rds are more telecentric than normal lenses. The light would have to be "bent" though no matter what in order to strike the sensor. Otherwise the sensor would have to be the exact same size as the glass, Which would push costs of everything through the roof. The above images are zoomed in. Here are the normal views which might explain it more:

Normal Lens on CCD:

4/3rds Lens on CCD:

My thoughts exactly. I think the better edge-to-edge clarity is also due to the sensor being a lot smaller than a 35mm frame, but the lenses being only marginally smaller than 35mm lenses.

Now this is essentially where I lose the plot I understand all of the issues with cropping, but understand it as follows. In order to get a 50mm focal distance as per conventional 35mm standards, you would have to multiple the new measurement by the crop factor. So on my wifes camera, the 18-55 lens is essentially a 28.8 - 88 lens by old 35mm standards. This is what allows us to use smaller lenses than previously. And is also the reason why the 4/3rds system, can go even smaller due to its 2x crop factor? Or did I lose it completely???

No, you have it more or less right. Your effective field of view is the focal length x crop factor.

With regards to the body and the new EF-s Lens.. that I think is why the 4/3rds was developed. As a way to standardise the whole process, where it wouldn't make a difference and that all lenses would be compatible.

Or maybe the manufacturers involved knew that if they didn't share the same lens platform, they'd have a much smaller chance of continued survival. I wonder how Olympus' market share would have been if they had kept their film lens mount?

There is allowance for bigger sensor sizes in the standard though, so they could also be increased later as technology increases to allow better designed sensors

Interesting - how much bigger?