Rumors?Oly to introduce Whole Frame in Photokina
- Thread starter narloke
- Start date
- Status
Do we have to repeat these false rumours here? If you take a look all the sources they only quote each others links, and the Luminous-Landscape link is defunct (someone on DPR stated that it's a false link, that LL message numbers are no where near the 85927:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=85927
This is one of those "dream on" fantasies due to the baffles on lenses they can't only be used on rectangular sensors.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=85927
This is one of those "dream on" fantasies due to the baffles on lenses they can't only be used on rectangular sensors.
Mike,don't get what you mean by "This is one of those "dream on" fantasies due to the baffles on lenses they can't only be used on rectangular sensors.",as I was talking to Tomcat on the other thread,he said that
"4/3 lenses can still be used as they are with the new camera.
Currently, the image circle cast by the 4/3 lenses only fall on a 4/3 sized sensor which only occupy a part of the new square sensor.
4/3 does not refer the 4:3 aspect ratio by the way. If not, many P&S digicams would qualify to be called 4/3 cameras."
So I'm curious,if they make the sensor square,wouldn't it be like 4:4 or 3:3 rather than 4:3 which gives 4/3 it's name of being the 4/3 system?If 4/3 does not refer to 4/3 aspect ratio,how did it get it's name 4/3?I thought most PnS cameras have a small sensor like 1/2.5 or smth like that which has a aspect ratio of 4:3 whereas 4:3 cameras have a 4 by 3 sensor which also gives it it's 4:3 ratio
Man i sound like a noob now,but currently confused with everyone's speaking
"4/3 lenses can still be used as they are with the new camera.
Currently, the image circle cast by the 4/3 lenses only fall on a 4/3 sized sensor which only occupy a part of the new square sensor.
4/3 does not refer the 4:3 aspect ratio by the way. If not, many P&S digicams would qualify to be called 4/3 cameras."
So I'm curious,if they make the sensor square,wouldn't it be like 4:4 or 3:3 rather than 4:3 which gives 4/3 it's name of being the 4/3 system?If 4/3 does not refer to 4/3 aspect ratio,how did it get it's name 4/3?I thought most PnS cameras have a small sensor like 1/2.5 or smth like that which has a aspect ratio of 4:3 whereas 4:3 cameras have a 4 by 3 sensor which also gives it it's 4:3 ratio
Man i sound like a noob now,but currently confused with everyone's speaking
the 4/3s standard comprises of a few specifications:
1) flange focal distance
2) lens mount
3) sensor aspect ratio
and with the lens mount being double the sensor size, there is the possibility of using a larger sensor though it would mean sacrificing lens performance in corners.
i read somewhere about the baffles, i'm not sure what those are but i think its like a internal lens hood within the lens construction.
if this does come through, its may not be necessary for the camera body makers like olympus or panasonic to have it has a 4/3 camera. it can be a special camera system or even a non-dslr that uses the 4/3s lens mount and flange focal distance without sensor size limitation.
i'm no engineer but i doubt a mirror box unit would fit in there while retaining a small body, but nowhere in the rumor said that it is going to be a dslr.
1) flange focal distance
2) lens mount
3) sensor aspect ratio
and with the lens mount being double the sensor size, there is the possibility of using a larger sensor though it would mean sacrificing lens performance in corners.
i read somewhere about the baffles, i'm not sure what those are but i think its like a internal lens hood within the lens construction.
if this does come through, its may not be necessary for the camera body makers like olympus or panasonic to have it has a 4/3 camera. it can be a special camera system or even a non-dslr that uses the 4/3s lens mount and flange focal distance without sensor size limitation.
i'm no engineer but i doubt a mirror box unit would fit in there while retaining a small body, but nowhere in the rumor said that it is going to be a dslr.
bousozoku
Senior Member
The four-thirds or 4/3 had to do with the sensor size and the aspect ratio, 4:3, was just coincidental or so they said at the launch of the E-1. The E-10 and E-20 dZLRs (digital Zoom Lens Reflex) had 2/3 sensors of 4MP and 5MP capacity, respectively.
As long as the sensor fits the basic size parameters, anything else should be acceptable.
However, this is a rumour, and an odd one. Panasonic has shown that it wants the ability to work the 3:2 ratio as well as 4:3 and 16:9, I believe, but that doesn't mean the whole system is going for big changes. Still, it could mean that Olympus has a larger body that isn't 35mm SLR-like at all.
probably,but I don't know,i still prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio from the current cameras,square just looks weird to me,or maybe I haven't seen it before,anyway,Tomcat kinda confused me with he said,thanks for clearing the doubts
4/3 (four third) refers to the aspect ratio.
4:4 or 3:3 gives an aspect ration of 1 so probably this supposedly new format would be known as the One System ;p
I think it makes sense and it is technical possible.
1. The four thirds patent has a provision for a Square sensor, so is not limited to only4:3, and I quote from the patent:
"Cameras having various specifications may be applied in an interchangeable lens type digital camera system. Therefore, cameras can have imaging ranges with different aspect ratios even having the same image circle. Especially, even when an image pickup device with the aspect ratio of 1:1 is mounted to the camera system according to this embodiment, the length-to-width concept of the camera no longer exists. In this case, when a screen with an arbitrary aspect ratio is trimmed and is read from the imaging range, the direction for holding a camera does not have to be changed for vertically long pictures and horizontally long pictures. Thus, the usability can be improved."
2. Many potential 4/3 buyers have rejected 4/3rds just because they don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio. They are used to 3:2 film.
The "Whole Frame" format not only solves that but it also will attract the square format fans.
3. Marketing wise it does 2 things, a) Gives Olympus more room to expand on the advertised megapixels. b) Introduce a new Flagship product that can be competitive with Full Frame. Heck, "Whole Frame" is in fact a more complete frame than 3:2 FF is.
4. Being 4/3rds the smallest DSLR format it gives them the advantage on cost, so mirror, shutter, sensor, prism would cost less. Everything is smaller than the competition. Canon can't match it, because the EF-S mount registration distance is too small, and Nikon is busy frying the FF fish. I'm sure sensor cost is not an issue, since it would have the area of a 1.5x crop sensor.
A "Whole Frame" version for 35mmFF would not only be too costly, but impossible due to the FF mount size.
5. Panasonic has shown the concept before with the TZ3 and TZ5 cameras, is similar but without the square sensor. So they might be interested.
6. Problems: The larger mirror couldn't fit in there, but I doubt it since the 4/3 mount have a spacious (38.67 mm) registration distance and this would need just about 3 to 4mm extra for the larger mirror. The lens baffles are not a problem either, AFAIK none of the 4/3 lenses would block an 18x18mm sensor. A bit of a problem however are the lens hoods, but that is just a piece of $8 plastic that can be offer to match the larger square format, those hoods would be a bit larger, about the size of a Nikon DX hoods, but with nicer symmetrical petals. The only real problem is the one or two lenses that have non-removable hoods, but those can lenses or lens can still shoot 4:3, can't it?
7. The benefits seem too small at first, but when you think about it, is actually quite revolutionary.
- This would put an end to the long 100+ year aspect ratio compromises in photography (OK except 6x6MF). "Whole Frame" is a free aspect ratio camera. So whatever is your AR preference this camera will do it. (Broader market appeal).
- Not having to rotate camera is the best part I think, and that has multiple "real world" benefits. In a Basketball game for instance, the ideal composition is changing rapidly from vertical to horizontal to square in matter of seconds, so there is not time to rotate and compose. In a wedding, when a bride is throwing the bouquet, there is no way to anticipate how high it will go, so this will allow the flexibility of that shot to being fully captured. Windsurfing, Motocross, etc, those are events that require flexibility with framing.
-Gone is the big vertical grip, the hassle to rotate photos in PP, and the camera can be designed with better ergonomics and there is no need for in-camera orientation sensor either.
-No more missed shots due to clumsy rotations needed when the camera is mounted on a tripod or monopod.
-Because of the larger frame coverage, making multi row panoramas require less shots, and if your are making one-shot bubble surrounds this will make for a more efficient capture.
-When using telephoto or/and small apertures, most lenses cast a larger than nominal image circle, this would make possible then to take even larger square shots with little or no vignetting.
As you can see these are some of the benefits.
So I hope the rumor is true.
It looks like the perfect flagship product the 4/3rds need.
Especially now that FF cameras are eroding E-3 market share.
Olympus have now like 5 different models in their current line-up with the major difference among them seem to be just in the name.
And I think the rumored Photokina E-30 tweener won't cut it, is just "another camera", they need something more exciting, more aggressive and more high-end.
BTW, In case you haven't noticed, the "Whole Frame" sensor 3:2-2:3 match EXACTLY Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. So there shouldn't be any question about the right proportions.
1. The four thirds patent has a provision for a Square sensor, so is not limited to only4:3, and I quote from the patent:
"Cameras having various specifications may be applied in an interchangeable lens type digital camera system. Therefore, cameras can have imaging ranges with different aspect ratios even having the same image circle. Especially, even when an image pickup device with the aspect ratio of 1:1 is mounted to the camera system according to this embodiment, the length-to-width concept of the camera no longer exists. In this case, when a screen with an arbitrary aspect ratio is trimmed and is read from the imaging range, the direction for holding a camera does not have to be changed for vertically long pictures and horizontally long pictures. Thus, the usability can be improved."
2. Many potential 4/3 buyers have rejected 4/3rds just because they don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio. They are used to 3:2 film.
The "Whole Frame" format not only solves that but it also will attract the square format fans.
3. Marketing wise it does 2 things, a) Gives Olympus more room to expand on the advertised megapixels. b) Introduce a new Flagship product that can be competitive with Full Frame. Heck, "Whole Frame" is in fact a more complete frame than 3:2 FF is.
4. Being 4/3rds the smallest DSLR format it gives them the advantage on cost, so mirror, shutter, sensor, prism would cost less. Everything is smaller than the competition. Canon can't match it, because the EF-S mount registration distance is too small, and Nikon is busy frying the FF fish. I'm sure sensor cost is not an issue, since it would have the area of a 1.5x crop sensor.
A "Whole Frame" version for 35mmFF would not only be too costly, but impossible due to the FF mount size.
5. Panasonic has shown the concept before with the TZ3 and TZ5 cameras, is similar but without the square sensor. So they might be interested.
6. Problems: The larger mirror couldn't fit in there, but I doubt it since the 4/3 mount have a spacious (38.67 mm) registration distance and this would need just about 3 to 4mm extra for the larger mirror. The lens baffles are not a problem either, AFAIK none of the 4/3 lenses would block an 18x18mm sensor. A bit of a problem however are the lens hoods, but that is just a piece of $8 plastic that can be offer to match the larger square format, those hoods would be a bit larger, about the size of a Nikon DX hoods, but with nicer symmetrical petals. The only real problem is the one or two lenses that have non-removable hoods, but those can lenses or lens can still shoot 4:3, can't it?
7. The benefits seem too small at first, but when you think about it, is actually quite revolutionary.
- This would put an end to the long 100+ year aspect ratio compromises in photography (OK except 6x6MF). "Whole Frame" is a free aspect ratio camera. So whatever is your AR preference this camera will do it. (Broader market appeal).
- Not having to rotate camera is the best part I think, and that has multiple "real world" benefits. In a Basketball game for instance, the ideal composition is changing rapidly from vertical to horizontal to square in matter of seconds, so there is not time to rotate and compose. In a wedding, when a bride is throwing the bouquet, there is no way to anticipate how high it will go, so this will allow the flexibility of that shot to being fully captured. Windsurfing, Motocross, etc, those are events that require flexibility with framing.
-Gone is the big vertical grip, the hassle to rotate photos in PP, and the camera can be designed with better ergonomics and there is no need for in-camera orientation sensor either.
-No more missed shots due to clumsy rotations needed when the camera is mounted on a tripod or monopod.
-Because of the larger frame coverage, making multi row panoramas require less shots, and if your are making one-shot bubble surrounds this will make for a more efficient capture.
-When using telephoto or/and small apertures, most lenses cast a larger than nominal image circle, this would make possible then to take even larger square shots with little or no vignetting.
As you can see these are some of the benefits.
So I hope the rumor is true.
It looks like the perfect flagship product the 4/3rds need.
Especially now that FF cameras are eroding E-3 market share.
Olympus have now like 5 different models in their current line-up with the major difference among them seem to be just in the name.
And I think the rumored Photokina E-30 tweener won't cut it, is just "another camera", they need something more exciting, more aggressive and more high-end.
BTW, In case you haven't noticed, the "Whole Frame" sensor 3:2-2:3 match EXACTLY Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. So there shouldn't be any question about the right proportions.
I think it makes sense and it is technical possible.
1. The four thirds patent has a provision for a Square sensor, so is not limited to only4:3, and I quote from the patent:
"Cameras having various specifications may be applied in an interchangeable lens type digital camera system. Therefore, cameras can have imaging ranges with different aspect ratios even having the same image circle. Especially, even when an image pickup device with the aspect ratio of 1:1 is mounted to the camera system according to this embodiment, the length-to-width concept of the camera no longer exists. In this case, when a screen with an arbitrary aspect ratio is trimmed and is read from the imaging range, the direction for holding a camera does not have to be changed for vertically long pictures and horizontally long pictures. Thus, the usability can be improved."
2. Many potential 4/3 buyers have rejected 4/3rds just because they don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio. They are used to 3:2 film.
The "Whole Frame" format not only solves that but it also will attract the square format fans.
3. Marketing wise it does 2 things, a) Gives Olympus more room to expand on the advertised megapixels. b) Introduce a new Flagship product that can be competitive with Full Frame. Heck, "Whole Frame" is in fact a more complete frame than 3:2 FF is.
4. Being 4/3rds the smallest DSLR format it gives them the advantage on cost, so mirror, shutter, sensor, prism would cost less. Everything is smaller than the competition. Canon can't match it, because the EF-S mount registration distance is too small, and Nikon is busy frying the FF fish. I'm sure sensor cost is not an issue, since it would have the area of a 1.5x crop sensor.
A "Whole Frame" version for 35mmFF would not only be too costly, but impossible due to the FF mount size.
5. Panasonic has shown the concept before with the TZ3 and TZ5 cameras, is similar but without the square sensor. So they might be interested.
6. Problems: The larger mirror couldn't fit in there, but I doubt it since the 4/3 mount have a spacious (38.67 mm) registration distance and this would need just about 3 to 4mm extra for the larger mirror. The lens baffles are not a problem either, AFAIK none of the 4/3 lenses would block an 18x18mm sensor. A bit of a problem however are the lens hoods, but that is just a piece of $8 plastic that can be offer to match the larger square format, those hoods would be a bit larger, about the size of a Nikon DX hoods, but with nicer symmetrical petals. The only real problem is the one or two lenses that have non-removable hoods, but those can lenses or lens can still shoot 4:3, can't it?
7. The benefits seem too small at first, but when you think about it, is actually quite revolutionary.
- This would put an end to the long 100+ year aspect ratio compromises in photography (OK except 6x6MF). "Whole Frame" is a free aspect ratio camera. So whatever is your AR preference this camera will do it. (Broader market appeal).
- Not having to rotate camera is the best part I think, and that has multiple "real world" benefits. In a Basketball game for instance, the ideal composition is changing rapidly from vertical to horizontal to square in matter of seconds, so there is not time to rotate and compose. In a wedding, when a bride is throwing the bouquet, there is no way to anticipate how high it will go, so this will allow the flexibility of that shot to being fully captured. Windsurfing, Motocross, etc, those are events that require flexibility with framing.
-Gone is the big vertical grip, the hassle to rotate photos in PP, and the camera can be designed with better ergonomics and there is no need for in-camera orientation sensor either.
-No more missed shots due to clumsy rotations needed when the camera is mounted on a tripod or monopod.
-Because of the larger frame coverage, making multi row panoramas require less shots, and if your are making one-shot bubble surrounds this will make for a more efficient capture.
-When using telephoto or/and small apertures, most lenses cast a larger than nominal image circle, this would make possible then to take even larger square shots with little or no vignetting.
As you can see these are some of the benefits.
So I hope the rumor is true.
It looks like the perfect flagship product the 4/3rds need.
Especially now that FF cameras are eroding E-3 market share.
Olympus have now like 5 different models in their current line-up with the major difference among them seem to be just in the name.
And I think the rumored Photokina E-30 tweener won't cut it, is just "another camera", they need something more exciting, more aggressive and more high-end.
BTW, In case you haven't noticed, the "Whole Frame" sensor 3:2-2:3 match EXACTLY Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. So there shouldn't be any question about the right proportions.
wow, that's some detailed research you've got there :thumbsup:
thanks for making your 1st post in clubsnap here in the 4/3 sub-forum
- Status