Nikon's upcoming micro 4/3rds system raises fascinating question

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Why not just quarter the current D3x sensor? You end up with a 6
megapixel sensor the same size as a micro 4/3rds sensor, with very
good imaging characteristics. Problem is, resolution is too low so
they'll undoubtedly make it at least 10 megapixels and lose the other
superior imaging characteristics of the big Nikon sensor's pixel size.

Is there actually any evidence that Nikon intends entering the Four Thirds
system?

I wouldn't be surprised -- if it seems to be becoming popular. After all,
Nikon did join the APS nonsense and Four Thirds appears to make a lot more
sense than that.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Why not just quarter the current D3x sensor? You end up with a 6
megapixel sensor the same size as a micro 4/3rds sensor, with very
good imaging characteristics. Problem is, resolution is too low so
they'll undoubtedly make it at least 10 megapixels and lose the other
superior imaging characteristics of the big Nikon sensor's pixel size.

Is there actually any evidence that Nikon intends entering the Four Thirds
system?

I wouldn't be surprised -- if it seems to be becoming popular. After all,
Nikon did join the APS nonsense and Four Thirds appears to make a lot more
sense than that.


I doubt it.
Over 90% of Nikon slr sales at my local specialist store are still Dx,
and the lower cost (D60) outsell higher cost (D90). It might be nice to
dream that Fx sales are better, but they aren't, so get over that.
Nikon seem to be placing themselves very firmly in APS-c and 35mm, with
new consumer "Dx" lenses and pro Fx lenses suited to either format. If
they make a compact camera similar to u4/3, then it would be "Dx" with
an extension tube of appropriate length so that all F mount lenses could
be used. At an outside chance it could be Fx, but I'd expect a Dx
version much earlier, for cost (sensor) reasons.

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Is there actually any evidence that Nikon intends entering the Four Thirds
system?

no. why would they do something that supports their competition? and
why would the 4/3rds consortium accept nikon or canon as members?

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Is there actually any evidence that Nikon intends entering the Four Thirds
system?

None. There are patents that indicate Nikon might come out with a micro
system of their own design. It would not be of the Four Thirds system.

--
Charles

nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Is there actually any evidence that Nikon intends entering the Four
Thirds system?

no. why would they do something that supports their competition? and
why would the 4/3rds consortium accept nikon or canon as members?

Why would they _not_ if Nikon or Canon decided to support the 4/3 system.
The whole point of 4/3 is that it's an open architecture.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

Is there actually any evidence that Nikon intends entering the Four
Thirds system?

no. why would they do something that supports their competition? and
why would the 4/3rds consortium accept nikon or canon as members?

Why would they _not_ if Nikon or Canon decided to support the 4/3 system.
The whole point of 4/3 is that it's an open architecture.

except that it's not truly an open standard. the only way to get the
spec is under non-disclosure, which is not what one would call 'open.'
they are also picky as to who even gets an nda to sign.

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
[]
My dream is that Nikon wakes up from the ancient 3:2 format nightmare
and releases a 4:3 format with the same surface area as the current FF
sensors.

For purely aesthetic reasons, I prefer 3:2 over 4:3.

How does 16:9 strike you?

David

On 2009-10-31 02:41:25 -0400, "David J Taylor"
said:

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
[]
My dream is that Nikon wakes up from the ancient 3:2 format nightmare
and releases a 4:3 format with the same surface area as the current FF
sensors.

For purely aesthetic reasons, I prefer 3:2 over 4:3.

How does 16:9 strike you?

David

And 4:3 relates to 16:9 how?
--
Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
news:2009103102474716807-adunc79617@mypacksnet...
On 2009-10-31 02:41:25 -0400, "David J Taylor"
said:

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
[]
My dream is that Nikon wakes up from the ancient 3:2 format nightmare
and releases a 4:3 format with the same surface area as the current
FF
sensors.

For purely aesthetic reasons, I prefer 3:2 over 4:3.

How does 16:9 strike you?

David

And 4:3 relates to 16:9 how?
--
Michael

It's (yet another) standard aspect ratio - "widescreen" TV. Perhaps if
1.5:1 pleases someone more than 1.333:1, 16:9 might please them even more.

David

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
news:2009103102474716807-adunc79617@mypacksnet...
On 2009-10-31 02:41:25 -0400, "David J Taylor"
said:

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
[]
My dream is that Nikon wakes up from the ancient 3:2 format nightmare
and releases a 4:3 format with the same surface area as the current
FF
sensors.

For purely aesthetic reasons, I prefer 3:2 over 4:3.

How does 16:9 strike you?

David

And 4:3 relates to 16:9 how?
--
Michael

It's (yet another) standard aspect ratio - "widescreen" TV. Perhaps if
1.5:1 pleases someone more than 1.333:1, 16:9 might please them even more.

David

It's funny how people promote one aspect ratio over another, claiming
¾sthetics, natural field of view and all.

I know it is silly to generalise from a single example, but I find the
'natural' field of view varies with what I'm doing. At my computer, I'm
happy with 10:3. Yes, two Apple 20 inch cinema displays side by side. I
do of course swivel my eyes to see the edges, but I honestly don't
notice anything above and below. When driving, I'm surely looking
through a similarly elongated landscape window. Running downstairs, I'm
in portrait mode, just before I trip up. Living in Europe 1:sqrt(2) is
a common ratio for reading, mostly portrait of course. I conclude that
photos and images should be in the right ratio for the subject. Doing
so sets the viewer's expectations for whatever story the 'artist' wants
to tell.

When you publish a collection of images in a book or on screen, of
course you are constrained by the medium. 16:9 and 1:sqrt(2) are the
obvious shapes to aim for with 2009 technology. A circle gets the most
from your lens, so something a bit squarer than 1:sqrt(2) would be good
for a sensor. 1.78 1.5 1.41 1.33
(aka 16:9 widescreen is more elongated than 3:2 DSLR than A4 paper than
4:3)
By that logic 4:3 is the winner.

But then I shoot a lot of stuff for widescreen slideshows and for
inserting into movies. For me, a 3:2 sensor is quite OK to be starting
with. It does not waste the lens too much. It does not waste too many
pixels either.

Elliott

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248