I'm assuming that a full frame sensor (bigger pixels) will always do
better regarding dynamic range. It also allows much shallower depth of
field. In order to produce equivalent depth of field on a 4/3 camera
the makers must produce much faster lenses than heretofore. That would
negate much of the cost advantage and I don't see them doing it. As
we've also just learned, from the link posted by Piers, Nikon's 33MP
sensor is not just blowing smoke.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/13/2012 4:41 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012, at 02:13 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> Sony?
>>>> Yes, the OM-D would be extremely tempting in full frame format. Who
>>>> will be first with a full frame mirrorless camera?
>>
>>
>> Strangly, I wonder about this. Sony is likely to redirect their
>> interests where the big dollars are. Video. They'll maintain a nice
>> presence in the prosumer level of still cameras, but I'm really
>> wondering if they will stay the course when it comes to full-frame.
>> There's already evidences to this.
>
> I'm wondering what the point of doing FF is other than it helps your
> clients keep their legacy glass in action. It appears that Olympus can
> do high-quality capture on 1/4 the real estate. If Olympus seemed boxed
> in by the 4/3 decision, it seems now that the worm is turning and C and
> N are boxed by having to support FF. FF will appear to have been a
> bridge until the smaller sensor bodies could catch up, and maybe now
> they have.
>
> Joel W.
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|