What, no Olympus is dead posts?

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Stacey, May 11, 2005.

  1. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    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

    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.
    Stacey, May 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Stacey

    Pete D Guest

    Ruled what? Took over what?
    Pete D, May 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Stacey

    Skip M Guest

    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...
    Skip M, May 11, 2005
  4. Stacey

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    Ron Hunter, May 11, 2005
  5. Stacey

    Ian Burley Guest

    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:


    ...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 Burley, May 11, 2005
  6. Stacey

    Leonard Guest

    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

    - Len
    Leonard, May 11, 2005
  7. Stacey

    Tony Guest

    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.
    Tony, May 11, 2005
  8. Stacey

    Tony Guest

    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
    Tony, May 11, 2005
  9. Stacey

    Tony Guest

    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.
    Tony, May 11, 2005
  10. Stacey

    JohnR66 Guest

    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.
    JohnR66, May 11, 2005
  11. Stacey

    Mark² Guest

    Nikon has yet to "rule" since Canon came on the Pro DSLR scene.
    They've been playing catch-up for several years now.
    Mark², May 12, 2005
  12. Stacey

    Mark² Guest

    Nice troll, Stacey.
    Mark², May 12, 2005
  13. Stacey

    Mark² Guest

    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.
    Mark², May 12, 2005
  14. Stacey

    Paul Furman Guest

    I thought 4/3 is a ratio: the same as all P&S cameras. Other DSLRS are
    3:2 (wider/narrower).
    Paul Furman, May 12, 2005
  15. 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
    David J. Littleboy, May 12, 2005
  16. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    Mark² wrote:

    Thanx ;-)
    Stacey, May 12, 2005
  17. Stacey

    Tony Guest

    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.
    Tony, May 12, 2005
  18. Stacey

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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?
    Ron Hunter, May 12, 2005
  19. Stacey

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    Ron Hunter, May 12, 2005
  20. 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
    David J. Littleboy, May 12, 2005
    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.