Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I do not believe the 4/3 system was ever claimed to be more compact, just allowed the lenses to be designed to be appropriate for digital sensors. The explanation I read many years ago was that lenses, particularly WA lenses, would have to be much larger for a given image area than lenses for film. This seems plausible, look how huge a 35 f1.4 lens for a SLR (which has an exit pupil much further from the film) is than a 35mm f1.4 rangefinder lens. The 4/3 system was designed with a lens throat diameter big enough to allow this. In order to use the same digital optimised lens designs on a sensor as big as 35mm film would require a lens mount diameter almost twice as big as the current EOS lens mount. No lenses designed for film are entirely suited to digital sensors, it is just a question of how whether the shortcomings are entirely negligible or are acceptable to a user. The 4/3 system seeks to avoid the optical problems but has the shortcomings of a smaller sensor. There is nothing about the 4/3 system which would lead to smaller lenses - faster lenses with less compromise and smaller bodies are possible. Frank On 8 Mar, 2007, at 10:26, Didier Ludwig wrote: > Mark > > My point was: why are the 4/3 cameras and lenses as big as the > other ones - because, at least in the beginning, the 4/3 system > claimed to be more compact? > > I strongly doubt that the 4/3 system is becoming a significant > factor in photojournalism, especially sports photography. Sounds > more like wishful thinking to me. The Oly and Panaleica lenses, as > sharp and fast they are, the slow is their autofocus. > > The trend for DSLR cameras clearly goes to bigger sensors, not > because of the backward compatibility to older lenses, but because > they deliver better quality than smaller ones - period. The sport > photographers I often meet in the hockey stadium are glad to have > high pixel counts - allowing them to crop more off a picture and > still keeping enough details. THAT'S ONE OF THE NEEDS, MARK. Have > never seen them using something else than (many) Canons and (a few) > Nikons. > > Larger 4/3 sensor: very unlikely. This would break the system into > subsystems. The so far produced lenses are made for exactly that > 4/3 sensor size, would not cover a larger field. Bigger sensor = > new lenses = new system = probably the death of the old 4/3. > > Didier > > > >> (...) >> The fact is that more and more magazine work is being done with >> the 4/3 >> format. Its perfect for it. We saw the Sports Illustrated bathing >> suit issue >> guy. Just the tip of the new iceberg. >> (...) >> I see 24x36mm digital format as a niche without a need format >> between APS-2 >> and medium format digital formats. The need for it is where I'm >> all ears? >> (...) >> Mark Rabiner > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information