Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma join Four Thirds

Subject: [OM] Re: Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma join Four Thirds
From: Skip Williams <om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:57:34 -0500
I'm no EE, and I understand the logical, rational argument that bigger pixels = 
lower noise images, as you have more area to collect photons per pixel.

But the same thinking has been applied to many photographic and electronic 
formats over the past 20-30 years.  How many people said that 35mm film would 
never replace MF or LF.  "My god, you've got several times the area on MF/4x5 
vs. 35mm.  There's not way that that little-bitty film will compete."  Of 
course, we found out that as film technology improved, for the vast majority of 
cases, the 35mm format was more than good enough.  The flexibility and 
advantages offered by the smaller format outweighed the advantages of the 
larger negatives.  It's better to get a shot onto 35mm film than get NO SHOT, 
right?  

I am taking a bit of a leap of faith that the electronics industry will come up 
with a way to make smaller, lower noise pixels over the next few years that 
will enable the 4/3 format to double it's pixel count, which is where I'd 
switch to an E-1 successor body.  I wouldn't switch from 6 to 8 MgPxl, that's 
just ridiculous from an investment and a practicality standpoint.  

Skip


>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma join Four Thirds
>   From: Earl Dunbar <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:59:34 -0500
>     To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>This was my thought when 4/3 was introduced.  For years, 35mm format was 
>considered inadeqate for serious work.  As equipment and film improved, it was 
>accepted as a serious tool.
> 
>James Royall wrote:
>> 
>> Just a thought on the 4/3 standard - maybe Olympus & Co have got it 
>> right and are taking the long view on sensor size. It seems true that 
>> in the next couple of years 4/3 may be disadvantaged in trying to fit 
>> enough noise free pixels in the area, but what about in 5 years + ? 
>> Sensor size will be able to decrease and Olympus will have an 
>> established lens and body system in place. Others will have needlessly 
>> bulky bodies and lenses.
>> 
>> James
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 Feb 2004, at 2:33 pm, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> 
>> > see:
>> > <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04021304morejoinfourthirds.asp>
>> >
>> > Chuck Norcutt
>> >
>> >
>> > The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>> >
>> > To contact the list admins: 
>> > mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus List Problem"
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>> 
>> To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus 
>> List Problem"
>
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus 
>List Problem"


The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus 
List Problem"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz