4/3rds consortium needs to shrink the bayonette to really shrink the cameras

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Oct 12, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    It's true that with any lens you need speed with, you need a certain
    diameter objective. 50mm f2 = 25mm. 200mm f4 = 50mm. But, take a
    look at something like the Olympus 35mm f3.5 macro lens. If it were a
    prime lens, not a macro, it could literally be less than an inch
    across and 1/2" deep. This is because the elements are very small.
    If Olympus decided to design a camera system, with a very small body,
    and they kept the lens choices confined to slower models, they could
    literally make their current system 1/2 as small as it now is. It is
    likely the electronics of the E-410 could be housed in an area less
    than 1/2 the volume of the current model. Look at the Canon 1DsMkII.
    Full frame, yet the inside is almost hollow. Judicious designing
    could render a 100mm f4 lens 1.5" across and only 60mm long.

    Remember the Pentax 110 SLR? About 3" long by around 1.5" x 1.5" or
    so. It supported a film size smaller than the 4/3rds sensor, but not
    much smaller. Obviously, a 14mm-55mm f2.8 zoom was not in the cards
    for it, but they did have lenses for it, very diminutive lenses. This
    could be a new branch for the 4/3rds cameras, ultra compact, yet still
    technically, DSLRs.
     
    RichA, Oct 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. OK I'll bite. What is your point?

     
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    That they intended their DSLR line to parallel the old OM line, be
    smaller than the competition, and better built. The E-410 is "kind
    of" aiming at this, but it is entry level only.
    The new E-3 will be fairly large. Without a specific, noticeable edge
    in some niche, Olympus is doomed.
     
    RichA, Oct 13, 2007
    #3
  4. That the smaller sensor has not lead to a significantly smaller system. I
    agree. I would love to have had a more compact system, but the present
    4/3 offerings just were not small enough, or cheap enough compared to
    Nikon entry-level.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 13, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    per Guest

    The bayonette of 4/3 is equal to the Konica Autoreflex, which was a full
    size film SLR!
    /per
     
    per, Oct 13, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    just bob Guest

    And the new Oly E-3 is heavier than most others.
     
    just bob, Oct 17, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.