Panasonic plans for Four thirds SLR development?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0501/05...fourthirds.asp

Might be done with leica designed optics using panasonics Optical Stabilized
technology?
--

Stacey

It may also mean that the 4/3 market isn't big enough to support two
manufacturers, and unless they enter into a joint venture, it doesn't make
sense ecomomically to market two separate cameras and systems. Ideally, we'd
have both manufacturers marketing competing equipment, along with a few
others (maybe). Right now, the 4/3 market is Olympus, and little else. It's
a very nice system, but I don't think it's achieved sufficient marketplace
traction yet, and it's very limited to competing systems from Nikon and
Canon.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0501/05...fourthirds.asp

Might be done with leica designed optics using panasonics Optical
Stabilized
technology?
--

Stacey

It may also mean that the 4/3 market isn't big enough to support two
manufacturers, and unless they enter into a joint venture, it doesn't make
sense ecomomically to market two separate cameras and systems. Ideally, we'd
have both manufacturers marketing competing equipment, along with a few
others (maybe). Right now, the 4/3 market is Olympus, and little else. It's
a very nice system, but I don't think it's achieved sufficient marketplace
traction yet, and it's very limited to competing systems from Nikon and
Canon.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0501/05...fourthirds.asp

Might be done with leica designed optics using panasonics Optical
Stabilized
technology?
--

Stacey

It may also mean that the 4/3 market isn't big enough to support two
manufacturers, and unless they enter into a joint venture, it doesn't make
sense ecomomically to market two separate cameras and systems. Ideally, we'd
have both manufacturers marketing competing equipment, along with a few
others (maybe). Right now, the 4/3 market is Olympus, and little else. It's
a very nice system, but I don't think it's achieved sufficient marketplace
traction yet, and it's very limited to competing systems from Nikon and
Canon.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0501/05...fourthirds.asp

Might be done with leica designed optics using panasonics Optical
Stabilized
technology?
--

Stacey

TAFKAB wrote:

It may also mean that the 4/3 market isn't big enough to support two
manufacturers, and unless they enter into a joint venture, it doesn't make
sense ecomomically to market two separate cameras and systems. Ideally,
we'd have both manufacturers marketing competing equipment, along with a
few others (maybe).

My thinking is panasonic is looking to make a Dslr like they have done with
their rangefinder via leica. Could be that Leica is looking at this as
well?

My feeling is at some point more MP is going to be less and less important
unless they make printers that can show a difference from files larger than
250-300DPI. How many people want larger than 16X20 prints from their
images? I'm getting 11X14's from 8MP at -close- to 250DPI straight from the
camera. My hope is that rather than continue trying to get more and more
MP, the manufacturers start working on better quality from the same size
sensors they already have. More dynamic range (which some sensors already
are doing) or less noise (which others are doing) or combine both together?

I also wonder why we are still using these bayer pattern single chip sensors
rather than something more like the 3CCD setup the better video cameras
have. Someone who is heavy into video like panasonic might bring this to
still imageing? It can only help to have some other big player getting into
the Dslr marketplace, maybe with a fresh perspective.

I don't believe that the 4/3 size sensor is a "dead end", look at the MP
they have gotten out of smaller sensors and the way technology has changed
in the past. I can't see why the next version sensors couldn't have the
same MP with less noise etc etc. Only time will tell where this ends up.

--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote:

My feeling is at some point more MP is going to be less and less
important
unless they make printers that can show a difference from files larger
than
250-300DPI. How many people want larger than 16X20 prints from their
images? I'm getting 11X14's from 8MP at -close- to 250DPI straight from
the
camera.

16MP is nice: 250 dpi at 13x19 (this is significant, since 13x19 printers
are relatively affordable), and 200 dpi at 16x24. (200 dpi looks pretty
decent as long as you stay a foot or so away, which is about the closest
people ever get to big prints.)

It's not clear at what point the difference kicks in for 8MP vs. 16.7MP, but
at A4, 11MP is noticeably better than 6MP, so it's probably 11x14 for 16MP
vs. 8MP. The extra res can really help on detail and texture.

Your point that 4/3 matches standard US print sizes is well taken, but for
A4 (and 13x19), 2:3 loses about 8% of its pixels whereas 4/3 loses about 6%.

My hope is that rather than continue trying to get more and more
MP, the manufacturers start working on better quality from the same size
sensors they already have. More dynamic range (which some sensors already
are doing) or less noise (which others are doing) or combine both
together?

More DNR and less noise are exactly the same thing. (Look it up in an
engineering textbook.)

You only get those by using larger pixels. At least according to Roger
Clark, the cameras are already essentially photon noise limited.

I also wonder why we are still using these bayer pattern single chip
sensors
rather than something more like the 3CCD setup the better video cameras
have. Someone who is heavy into video like panasonic might bring this to
still imageing? It can only help to have some other big player getting
into
the Dslr marketplace, maybe with a fresh perspective.

The mathematics of discrete sampling are the limit. It turns out that you
_must_ use a low-pass filter for correct imaging (no Moire). What that means
is that you can't do significantly better than Bayer with three-color
sampling, since Bayer gets nearly the same luminance information as
three-color sensors do. (Bayer gets a similar balance between luminance and
color resolution as the human eye, so improvement in color resolution beyond
Bayer wouldn't be detectable.)

Basically, Bayer is flipping amazing. A brilliant idea.

I don't believe that the 4/3 size sensor is a "dead end", look at the MP
they have gotten out of smaller sensors and the way technology has changed
in the past. I can't see why the next version sensors couldn't have the
same MP with less noise etc etc. Only time will tell where this ends up.

It sure looks like a dead end to me: once you are photon noise limited, you
can't do any better, and (if Roger is correct on this) we're already pretty
much there.

And even if there's more to be squeezed out of smaller pixels, larger pixels
will always do even better. Larger formats are always better. You, of all
people, should know that.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan