V
Vivek
Guest
Would a tilt lens be going against the telecentric "requirements" of the 4/3rds (and /or the M4/3rds)?
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
HI Vivek - I don't think it's bogus, and in practical terms I think the quality of the Zuiko 4:3 lenses speak for themselves - even the cheap ones can be shot wide open at all focal lengths without concern . . .not something that you can say about any other manufacturer's lenses.This whole argument advanced by the 4/3rds on telecentricity, in practical terms, seems bogus to me.
Just because obeying the laws of telecentricity would seem to produce great lenses, doesn't imply the opposite (that not obeying the rules produces bad ones).All those who are using movements with (whatever) lenses to capture their images should not be doing that at all with a digital sensor if 4/3rds and telecentricity are to be believed.
HI RileyIts no bad thing if they hang onto it, in my judgement it gives them a get out of jail card for the future, that of increasing sensor size.
:ROTFL:thanks Jono
when i first coined that over at the darkside it caused a hell of a ruckus...
Ah - now I really disagree - and yours is a mantra that is parroted over and over again on the Olympus forum.inconceivable or not, ideally the lens sizes wouldnt change, a sensor increase would have to be within the scope that lenses would allow, while being large enough to make it worthwhile.
i dont see FF 'winning' either, the dSLR world is APSC, but Olympus must keep pace with its sector of competition, as it stands now, they are always going to be short of that, and market position suffers accordingly.
Hi VivekJono, The pixel densities of 50D and the E3 based solely on the sensor area (and pixel count) are incorrect.
The E3 pixel (light collecting surface) are larger (NMOS) than that of the corresponding 50D's (CMOS).
thats pretty far from the real size story though isnt it, when we go 12Mp and we will, we will be back over 50D density. Its the density thats killing us, pixel size affects noise and DR. It seems the Kodak sensors were larger at 243sqmm, right now we run 225sqmm, the Canon APSC is 100sqmm bigger at 328sqmm.Ah - now I really disagree - and yours is a mantra that is parroted over and over again on the Olympus forum.
Let's Look
the Canon 50D sensor is 14.9mm high (pixel density 4.5)
The Olympus E3 sensor is 13.5 mm high (pixel density 4.2)
that is approximately 10% taller (of course they have a different aspect ratio).
if you thought we lost 2/3 stop iso to canon, that would be about right. Im not so sure panny sensors are weak, they just deliver what they can for their size. Noise on the same DoF looks about the samejonoslack said:The problem right now is that the Panasonic sensors are not as good as the Canon sensors. However, the Olympus budget lenses are in a different league from the Canon ones.
ok, lets say IQ is affected by a slightly larger sensor, you need to resolve how much you shoot wide open v/s the stop of better iso performance you would pick up. Vignetting is controlled from the diagonal, noise and DR are controlled by the area.jonoslack said:If a decent sensor was used in 4:3, then nobody, but nobody would be able to tell the difference in IQ, but if Olympus put bigger sensors in their bodies then you would immediately lose the real advantage they have in edge definition and vignetting, added to which they would still be using a poor sensor!
it would actually be better still with a bigger sensor. The patent allows that 25mm diagonal is the maximum, thats a 20x15mm sensor with an area of 300sqmm. As Canon APSC is 328sqmm, the nMOS/pMOS configuration would allow for less wiring and hence more area for well sizes, we would actually be infront.jonoslack said:What 4:3 needs is good quality sensors - their design is already streets ahead of the kludgy APS-c competition. Changing the design rather then sensor would lose them everything.
Which would be sad (IMHO).
Assuming you are right (I haven't a clue) I would say that is because they haven't got their marketing right in the larger world, and that their comparatively poor marketing would make matters even worse if they made their product like everyone else's.the determinant of well sizes aside, and that imposition on performance, ISO, DR etc, there is more to sensor size as a physical limit in play though Jono, there is the perception of sensor size.
Olympus are losing money in the SLR div, sales are holding up only b/se they sell them very cheaply. If they sold for what they were worth volume would fall, and the tiny share they have already would shrink further to the 'inferior' APSC. Whatever they are doing at the moment isnt working, its as simple as that. as they say in the classics, people aren't buying it.
I'm sorry - figures again - but I'm extremely suspicious. What I KNOW is that I have NEVER had a good wide angle lens for either APS/c or full frame which weighed less than 900gm - most of them never get good even if you stop down, and by the time they've stopped having crap corners the middle's no good.As to vignetting etc, the larger the crop factor the less vignetting is as an issue, there is scant difference between 2x and 1.73x but a measley 1/4 of a stop. Opticly lens resolution would improve, as the MTF of 60/20 we use now would become a more ideal 45/15. The lenses would actually perform better by 33%.