4/3rds Format

[milest]

Surprised to find so little discussion on the 4/3rds format nowadays (perhaps you have said it all). Want to start acquiring a photo system around a mid-level digital camera - is 4/3rds is a format to go with or avoid? While the jury may stay out for several years, and 4/3rds clearly has its risks, buying cameras from other makers without a declared long-term format plan poses equal risks? As an aside, will there be, say in 10 years,a digital format equivalent to 35mm film (and how long did 35mm take)?

[trog100]

"As an aside, will there be, say in 10 years,a digital format equivalent to 35mm film (and how long did 35mm take)?"

do u mean cheaper and more convenient but inferior.. he he

joking apart i think u mean will there be a "standard".. i dont think so probably cos there wont need to be.. i think cameras of the future will be all in one packages that do "everything".. in todays digital age ten years is a long time..

nothing is ever around long enough nowadays to become a real "standard" is it..???

i think even thow its a good idea the 4/3rds format is dead in the water before it starts.. just because of todays speeed of technological change.. kinda frightening really..

trog100

[Michael Fanelli]

Surprised to find so little discussion on the 4/3rds format nowadays (perhaps you have said it all). Want to start acquiring a photo system around a mid-level digital camera - is 4/3rds is a format to go with or avoid? While the jury may stay out for several years, and 4/3rds clearly has its risks, buying cameras from other makers without a declared long-term format plan poses equal risks? As an aside, will there be, say in 10 years,a digital format equivalent to 35mm film (and how long did 35mm take)?

Only Olympus is making 4/3 cameras so the discussion is minimal. The format is smaller than current APS sensors which limits its image quality. The 4/3 lenses are stuck with 4/3, other companies using 35mm lenses allows all sensor sizes up through full frame.

Sensor prices are dropping which means that affordable large sensors are in the future. Manufacturers other than Olympus are upgradable. I personally won't invest in a small format that is locked in place when so many other expandable choices exist.

[milest]

Only Olympus is making 4/3 cameras so the discussion is minimal. The format is smaller than current APS sensors which limits its image quality. The 4/3 lenses are stuck with 4/3, other companies using 35mm lenses allows all sensor sizes up through full frame.

Sensor prices are dropping which means that affordable large sensors are in the future. Manufacturers other than Olympus are upgradable. I personally won't invest in a small format that is locked in place when so many other expandable choices exist.

Sticking my neckout, (and being indeed concerned about the chip size of 4/3rds), I browsed this forum and found several comments by you with the consistent line that 'Larger sensors always win so Olympus will always be behind the cuve of image quality.'.

Can you substantiate this, and especially to the extent of what the human eye can detect. You may be theoretically right but if we can't see the 'weakness' in terms of image quality then does it matter. Furthermore, I find no posts about poor E1 image quality?

[Michael Fanelli]

Sticking my neckout, (and being indeed concerned about the chip size of 4/3rds), I browsed this forum and found several comments by you with the consistent line that 'Larger sensors always win so Olympus will always be behind the cuve of image quality.'.

Can you substantiate this, and especially to the extent of what the human eye can detect. You may be theoretically right but if we can't see the 'weakness' in terms of image quality then does it matter. Furthermore, I find no posts about poor E1 image quality?

Just read the reviews, the 4/3 cameras are OK at lower ISOs but suffer at higher ISOs just as one might expect. Start with www.dpreview.com and move on from there.

As for improvements, lets say technology gets better and improves the tiny Olympus sensor by leaps and bounds. Well, that same technology can be used to improve the larger sensors by leaps and bounds as well. Larger always wins.

This is the same type of argument that used to occur in the film world. Champions of 35mm would claim with each new development that they didn't need medium format. But the medium format film would then use those same improvements and still be heads above 35mm. Size matters.

Image quality is not the only way to judge a camera. Some find that the Olympus cameras suit their needs. No problem with that. What advantages? Maybe size for example. But then, the Pentax DSLRs are just as small or smaller. Perhaps "digitally enhanced lenses", but the final result is what counts and there isn't the difference one might guess at.

IMHO, Olympus placing all of their eggs in such a small sensor size basket is a bad and dangerous business move. Time will tell.

[milest]

Just read the reviews, the 4/3 cameras are OK at lower ISOs but suffer at higher ISOs just as one might expect. Start with www.dpreview.com and move on from there.

As for improvements, lets say technology gets better and improves the tiny Olympus sensor by leaps and bounds. Well, that same technology can be used to improve the larger sensors by leaps and bounds as well. Larger always wins.

This is the same type of argument that used to occur in the film world. Champions of 35mm would claim with each new development that they didn't need medium format. But the medium format film would then use those same improvements and still be heads above 35mm. Size matters.

Image quality is not the only way to judge a camera. Some find that the Olympus cameras suit their needs. No problem with that. What advantages? Maybe size for example. But then, the Pentax DSLRs are just as small or smaller. Perhaps "digitally enhanced lenses", but the final result is what counts and there isn't the difference one might guess at.

IMHO, Olympus placing all of their eggs in such a small sensor size basket is a bad and dangerous business move. Time will tell.

Thanks for your response - but does a bigger sensor not need a bigger lens mount to get the optimal performance out of its 'bigness', or perhaps I have misread it? If that is true, then other manufacturers will need to develop bigger cameras if they use bigger chips for the optimal result? As you say, time will tell but your last line puts the lie to waiting - I want to start a system NOW - have waited a long time since my OM2!

[Michael Fanelli]

Thanks for your response - but does a bigger sensor not need a bigger lens mount to get the optimal performance out of its 'bigness', or perhaps I have misread it? If that is true, then other manufacturers will need to develop bigger cameras if they use bigger chips for the optimal result? As you say, time will tell but your last line puts the lie to waiting - I want to start a system NOW - have waited a long time since my OM2!

Well, all other manufacturers use the same mount as their film cameras. That 35mm image circle is called "full frame" in the digital world. Full frame sensors are still very expensive but will get cheaper. There are also medium format backs that use existing MF camera bodies and lenses. What this does is preserve your investment in lenses, much more expensive than camera bodies.

You may already know this but your OM lenses will not fit on the Olympus digital cameras. Unlike everyone else, Olympus changed the entire mount.

[milest]

Well, all other manufacturers use the same mount as their film cameras. That 35mm image circle is called "full frame" in the digital world. Full frame sensors are still very expensive but will get cheaper. There are also medium format backs that use existing MF camera bodies and lenses. What this does is preserve your investment in lenses, much more expensive than camera bodies.

You may already know this but your OM lenses will not fit on the Olympus digital cameras. Unlike everyone else, Olympus changed the entire mount.

Heard that response of sensors to incident light was different to that of film, hence full frame sensor only provided optimal digital performance if lens mount 'optimised' for sensor which of course precluded preservation of previous investment (but the finer points of camera design are definitely beyond me and I doubt I couldtellany difference). Of course, that's Olympus's line and ultimately it comes down to personal preference. Re last line, the web says Olympus does make, and even sometimes give away, a converter ring. I shall sit back and ponder awhile; all my investment is 20 years old! Thanks for your input.

[Sebastian]

Micheal is right, and it is ultimately very simple.

A CCD/CMOS is an analog device, it reads light and converts it to current. The larger the pixel, the more light hits it, and the stronger the signal. Compare a full-frame 8 megapixel sensor to a 4/3 8 megapixel sensor and the 4/3 sensor will have to have it's "gain" turned up higher to squeeze the same sensitivity out of it at the same settings as the larger sensor. And since the "gain" is being turned up noise is introduced, color saturation suffers and dynamic range in decreased. In the end, a bigger pixel is ALWAYS better than a smaller pixel.

As for larger sensors having different reactions to incident light than film, you are referring to the angle of the light hitting the sensor. Film is a two-dimensional medium, whereas sensors are three-dimensional, the pixels have depth. Therefore towards the edges light tends to fall off, just like it does on film due to lens limitations, because the light is not hitting the plane at a right angle. This is largely remedied by different designs of pixels to redirect most of the light correctly and is really not that big of a problem, and is so slight that it can be easily fixed with software in the somewhat limited instances that it's required. Still, the ability to record better color and less noise on a larger sensor greatly outweighs this issue, since this is a minor problem at worst, and excessive noise and lack of dynamic range are much more serious.

So in the end, I would say one thing differently from the way Michael put it, the larger PIXEL will always win, all other things being equal.

Now, technology progresses, and the quality of smaller pixels today is much greater than what it used to be with much larger pixels. Sensors today are produced in ways that limit signal spill, processing units are positioned to minimize impact on sensors, pixels are read differently than they used to be, so TODAY's pixels, although much smaller than what they used to be, take much nicer pictures than pixels of just a few years ago. BUT, the technology applied to a smaller pixel TODAY still will lose out to a larger pixel made today. Once again echoing what Michael said, improvements apply to both types of sensor, and then the deciding factor will be the basic stuff outlined in the beginning of this post.

As for Olympus, the are not really innovating in that area. They don't have the R&D and ability to develop these quality-improving technologies. And their partner in this whole standard is Kodak, who has shown time and again that they have no business designing sensors, as the 14n's has been a train wreck. Olympus instead depends on other companies to innovate, at which point they can license the technology and incorporate it, or learn manufacturing tricks from others.

Canon and Nikon are the two top dogs, and the reason Canon took the lead in the digital realm was because they have an incredible division that produces their own sensors, and they bring the technology to market as soon as it's ready. Nikon's attempt at their own sensor design in the D2h was weak, and they continue to use Sony's work in their new flagship D2x. For them being a producer of the machines that make the processors and sensors was not enough to be able to actually make a good part themselves. Sony has much more experience in this regard, and that's why Sony cameras tend to consistently be near the top in image quality, and why the partnership with nikon continues into the foreseeable future.

Now to add one more piece of opinion to all of this, I think Olympus is way too underfunded and inexperienced to try to make any sort of digital standard, and Kodak simply has had a bad track record. I don't see a future in 4/3s, I think it was too short-sighted and too late to market. Progress doesn't wait for potentially good ideas, when they don't come or don't deliver it replaces them with something better. The problem that Olympus needs to overcome is that there already is something better, and it's getting better faster than what they can deliver. I just don't see any way their system is competitive with anything else on the market.