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

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.

 

OK I'll bite. What is your point?

 

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.

 

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

 

The bayonette of 4/3 is equal to the Konica Autoreflex, which was a full
size film SLR!
/per

 

And the new Oly E-3 is heavier than most others.