What, no Olympus is dead posts?

I'm shocked the trolls haven't started "olympus is going bankrupt" threads
like most the olympus forums are being flooded with by non-olympus
users....

Of course this "news" means 4/3's is dead and people should all flock to
canon! Or wait is it their P&S line that lost them money? The anouncment
did say 2 new dSLR's are going to be introduced this year, doesn't sound
like something a company would do if -that- product line was what was
bringing their profits down.

 

Ruled what? Took over what?

 

Feeling oversensitive again, are you, Stacey? Funny that you'd be the one
to bring the subject up. You're always accusing others, primarily Canon
shooters, of slamming Oly, but you always seem to be the one to start out
with an unneeded defense of the camera you use...

 

Well, the truth is that Olympus isn't doing too well in the market
(sales, or stocks). I don't think it is too late for them to pull out
of the doldrums, however. A really good, breakthrough, product might
lift their prospects a lot.

 

Twice the sensor area?

Sony CCD (Nikon D100, D70, Pentax *istD, Konica Minolta D7, etc.) 24x16mm =
58% more area than Four Thirds (18x13.5mm)

Canon CMOS (D30/60, 10D, 20D, 300DRebel, 350D/Rebel XT) 22.7x15.1mm = 41%
more area

Sigma Foveon X3 (SD9, SD10) 20.7x13.8mm = 18% more area

If you look at the a comparative illustration of the smaller DSLR sensor
areas here:

http://www.pbase.com/crea7or/image/39907611/original

...you will see that the actual differences are marginalised by the fact that
they represent quite small borders around the main frame.

What's much more compelling to me is that Four Thirds has 318% additional
area (or just over four times the area) compared to the largest sensor
(2/3rd in.) used in the best point and shoot digicams (Canon Pro 1, Konica
Minolta A200, Sony F-828, Olympus C8080WZ, Nikon CP8800, Panasonic Lumix
LC-1, Leica Digilux 2, etc.) and most other good quality point and shoots
use a 1/1.8 in. sensor, over which Four Thirds has an even greater
additional coverage of 537%!

Technically, the Four Thirds sensor should deliver a very large improvement
in image quality over 2/3rd and 1/1.8 inch point and shoots, from which a
lot of buyers will be wanting to upgrade from. The difference between all
the smaller DSLR formats is tiny by comparison.

There is no doubt that Canon has done a tremendous job in taming CMOS to
deliver arguably the best image quality out of the smaller sensor DSLRs (I'm
referring to the 20D). The Sony sensor is very very good too.

The two Four Thirds cameras to date, the Olympus E-1 and E-300 (Evolt), can
produce excellent images but neither are particularly good at higher ISOs
compared to the competition. Fingers automatically point at the sensor size,
but I think that's a red herring. Olympus (and Panasonic, who will bring out
their own Four Thirds cameras next year) need to work harder on the signal
delivery and amplification from the Kodak CCDs currently used or introduce
an alternative CCD that is closer in performance to the competition -
Panasonic makes CCDs, so who knows?

Sure, Four Thirds needs to up its technical game to get the high ISO
performance, but the sensor size is not the issue. I think a much more
challenging issue is the marketing and model design and specification. The
E-1 is a superb body, but it was obviously compromised - being a pro-spec
body, ergonomically great and built like a tank but not having the speed and
resolution of other pro cameras. My guess is that the performance issue was
dictated by the need to keep the cost down. The E-300 is also a
cost-compromise and the unusual design is a bit like a VW - either you like
it or you hate it. But again, neither are representative of what can be
achieved with the Four Thirds platform.

Another point (congrats for getting this far!!!) is that while the Four
Thirds sensor size difference to its competitors is arguably minor in terms
of image quality difference (potentially at any rate), it does have a useful
impact on the manufacturing price - the cost per chip increases
exponentially as the chip area increases because you can fit many more on a
silicon wafer and a smaller percentage of chips will be lost to wafer
faults. As the sensor is one of the most expensive components in a DSLR,
this could be an ace card for Four Thirds. It's one reason why the
E-300/Evolt is so cheap desote being an 8MP camera. OK, so the Canon
350D/Rebel XT is 8MP and cheap too, but that has a CMOS chip and these are
cheaper to make than CCDs. There is no technical reason why a CMOS Four
Thirds chip can't be made.

I don't think Olympus can make Four Thirds a success by itself, but with
Panasonic on board, it has a fighting chance. Success breeds success and
there are some important Four Thirds fence-sitters like Fujifilm and Kodak -
if Olympus and Panasonic can start being successful, they could tempt
Fujifilm and Kodak to start making Four Thirds cameras, maybe even joined by
Sigma (which is already selling Four Thirds compatible lenses), then things
could look very rosey.

Seminar over!

Ian

 

Ian Burley wrote:

[snipped much good sense]

In the UK at least, the E-300 is quite a bit cheaper than the 350D
already. The lens range is looking a lot more useful (although still
lacking a fast normal) and reasonably priced (except for a couple
of aberrations like the 150/2) these days, and with more to come
I'd expect the system to sell fairly well.

A point I'd like to make here is that for many prospective dSLR buyers,
the performance available from any of the entry-level products will be
"good enough" and their purchasing decisions may be more influenced by
individual matters of taste such as ergonomics and even appearence -
rather than whether the pictures will look slightly better at larger
than A4 sizes, or whether the high-ISO performance is only a little
better than with fast films.

Of course those of us with existing lens collections will be biased
appropriately.

- Len

 

My local camera store has an Olympus 4/3rd camera - or they did as of a
couple months ago. IT was the first and only one they ever stocked. I don't
think the 4/3rds system is dead so much as stillborn.
Perhaps they will get something going yet, but after two years I'm
beginning to think the market has passed them by.

 

They would have to change the mirror, the lens to sensor plane and the
lenses to go to a larger sensor - that would be a completely new system ---
and probably similar to the more successful digital cameras based on 35mm
equipment.

 

I think the article is actually giving Olympus some credit they haven't
earned. It says: "Olympus' digital camera business has been hit by fierce
competition from Canon Inc., Nikon Corp. and other rivals". In reality
Olympus simply was not competitive at all.

 

Aside from the higher ISO noise issue, I was put off by the price of the
lenses. At least when the E-1 and lenses were introduced, the lens prices
were hard to believe.
John

 

Nikon has yet to "rule" since Canon came on the Pro DSLR scene.
They've been playing catch-up for several years now.

 

Nice troll, Stacey.

 

They are locked...jsut as the DX lenses of Nikon are locked, and/or the S
lenses of Canon are locked.
Unless you build a new body system, they cannot project an image larger than
what they project now.
This is why (IMHO) it is questionable as to the wisdom of buying into either
DX or S lenses.
When/if full frame becomes commonplace, they will be extremely crippled.

 

I thought 4/3 is a ratio: the same as all P&S cameras. Other DSLRS are
3:2 (wider/narrower).

 

Here: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf

4/3 is the name Olympus et al. are using for that sensor size. It appears to
be a pun: a one and one third (4/3") inch TV camera tube would cover twice
the size (four times the area) of a 2/3" TV camera tube, giving the 4/3
sensor four times the area of the 2/3" sensors used in the high-end dcams.
So 4/3 is both the size and the aspect ratio.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

Mark² wrote:

Thanx ;-)

 

Wrong. It is not the diameter but the distance between the mounting flange
and the sensor that is important. Change that and current lenses will not
focus. You cannot change from a smaller sensor to a larger one without also
changing that distance AND making a bigger mirror. You would essentially be
making another incompatible system.
Look at the two lines of Canon EOS cameras. The EF-S mount lenses can
only be used on the bodies built for them - and this was in going DOWN from
a 35mm frame. Going UP from the 4/3rds frame would mean that ALL current
lenses would be useless with the second generation bodies -- in other words
commercial suicide.
Olympus has designed the bodies and lenses, and set up the "standards"
for the 4/3rds system. At this point has to either stick with it or simply
forget the system market.

 

Well, no. It is an aspect ratio, which has nothing to do with 'size'.
Mine is bigger than my dad's, but not as big as my older brother's. Who
has 6 inches?

 

4:3 is a RATIO, it has nothing to do with a 'size', only specification
that the length and width of the sensor are at a certain ratio. Size
needs to specify a measuring unit for at least one side of the sensor,
and an aspect ratio, or two sides of the sensor.

 

No, it's the sensor size. It follows the same sensor size nomenclature used
for the consumer dcams. 4/3 is twice 2/3, and the 4/3 sensor is twice the
dimensions and four times the area of the sensors used in the 2/3" dcams.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan