Olympus 4/3rds advantages fading

RichA writes:
What Olympus does still have is a size advantage and it seems that
(maybe) people are slowly gravitating towards smaller sized systems
because they are easier to put up with.

But any "size advantage" conferred by the 4/3 sensor is actually pretty
minimal -- the image diagonal of the 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C,
but less so than the sensor area might seem to indicate: the APS-C
sensor is 80% larger in area than the 4:3 sensor, but only 33% larger in
image diagonal (30.1mm vs 22.5mm).

If the other companies want to compete in the "small but flexible"
market, they can easily do it using more popular sensor sizes (APS-C,
for instance, seems a nice middle-ground sizewise, and obviously very
well developed, and with some low-light advantage from the larger area).

Olympus invested lots of money into the 4/3 sensor for their DSLRs, so
it's natural that they're trying their best to get some return on that
investment by pushing the format, but the advantages are far less clear
for other camera makers.

-Miles

--
Inhumanity, n. One of the signal and characteristic qualities of humanity.

Miles Bader wrote:
RichA writes:
What Olympus does still have is a size advantage and it seems that
(maybe) people are slowly gravitating towards smaller sized systems
because they are easier to put up with.

It started off faded and has faded more in the meantime. Oly's select
(and very expensive) lenses aside, it's all been a misadventure for Oly
and with the advent of affordable (more or less) full frame, Oly are
really sitting on the bench.

OTOH, Pentax haven't stepped up to full frame yet either and their
recent push for colourful cameras puts some question to their upper end
of the market goals.

Alan Browne writes:
OTOH, Pentax haven't stepped up to full frame yet either and their
recent push for colourful cameras puts some question to their upper end
of the market goals.

I don't really think so -- the recently released K-7 is a _very_ good
camera and moves more towards the high-end for Pentax; the K-x simply
shows that the low-end is important too. [Supposedly they're due to
soon release a new model in between the two as well.]

-Miles

--
Conservative, n. A statesman enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a
Liberal, who wants to replace them with new ones.

Miles Bader wrote:
Alan Browne writes:
OTOH, Pentax haven't stepped up to full frame yet either and their
recent push for colourful cameras puts some question to their upper end
of the market goals.

I don't really think so -- the recently released K-7 is a _very_ good
camera and moves more towards the high-end for Pentax; the K-x simply
shows that the low-end is important too. [Supposedly they're due to
soon release a new model in between the two as well.]

A good point.

But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they
stick to the 3/4 standard.

Alan Browne writes:
I don't really think so -- the recently released K-7 is a _very_ good
camera and moves more towards the high-end for Pentax; the K-x simply
shows that the low-end is important too. [Supposedly they're due to
soon release a new model in between the two as well.]

A good point.

But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they
stick to the 3/4 standard.

"3/4 standard"?

-Miles

--
Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as
they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a
cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

In article , Miles Bader
wrote:

But any "size advantage" conferred by the 4/3 sensor is actually pretty
minimal -- the image diagonal of the 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C,
but less so than the sensor area might seem to indicate: the APS-C
sensor is 80% larger in area than the 4:3 sensor, but only 33% larger in
image diagonal (30.1mm vs 22.5mm).

area is what matters, and more closely represents the difference in
performance. 4/3 is about one stop noisier than aps-c and about 2 stops
noisier than full frame.

In article , Miles Bader
wrote:

But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they
stick to the 3/4 standard.

"3/4 standard"?

an obvious typo.

Miles Bader wrote:
Alan Browne writes:
I don't really think so -- the recently released K-7 is a _very_ good
camera and moves more towards the high-end for Pentax; the K-x simply
shows that the low-end is important too. [Supposedly they're due to
soon release a new model in between the two as well.]
A good point.

But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they
stick to the 3/4 standard.

"3/4 standard"?

Yawn.

nospam wrote:
In article , Miles Bader
wrote:

But they are perfectly locked out of FF, regardless, as long as they
stick to the 3/4 standard.
"3/4 standard"?

an obvious typo.

I'm a member of the CAD (Canadian Dyslexics Association).

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:28:03 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , Miles Bader
wrote:

But any "size advantage" conferred by the 4/3 sensor is actually pretty
minimal -- the image diagonal of the 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C,
but less so than the sensor area might seem to indicate: the APS-C
sensor is 80% larger in area than the 4:3 sensor, but only 33% larger in
image diagonal (30.1mm vs 22.5mm).

area is what matters, and more closely represents the difference in
performance. 4/3 is about one stop noisier than aps-c and about 2 stops
noisier than full frame.

A common misconception of all resident trolls. You cannot compare noise
levels by size alone. As technologies advance, smaller sensors today are
far better than larger sensors of only a few months ago. The holy-grail
"full frame" 35mm analog film "standard" that everyone erroneously worships
is wholly irrelevant when it comes to digital imaging. There is no
"standard" anymore. Except in the minds of total fools.