Sensors getting.....smaller?

[prodigy2k7]

No AF, no AE, no light meter, not useful (for me) at all.

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? What doesn't have AF, AE, light metering?

 

[Garbz]

To chime in here doesn't that break compatibility with the entire 4/3rds system? Wasn't the point of 4/3rds a camera where the lenses could be used between manufacturers who join into it and designed so that they work on all leica panasonic olympus + other 4/3rders and can even be adapted to Nikon and Canon.

If you're going to change the system would it not make sense to change the name? I wonder if the lenses are going to be different how many consumers will buy Micro 4/3rds lenses thinking they'll fit on standard 4/3rds cameras, only to find that they lose their near focus because the lens sits soo much closer to the sensor...

I'm guessing here anyway.

 

[Bifurcator]

Intelligent guesses.

But it might be just another scam to sell more equipment too.

If the MicroSD (oops I meant Micro 4/3rds) system runs cooler and is better for longer exposures and coming video it might even nudge out the old system. <shrug>

Also just guessing.

 

[usayit]

To chime in here doesn't that break compatibility with the entire 4/3rds system? Wasn't the point of 4/3rds a camera where the lenses could be used between manufacturers who join into it and designed so that they work on all leica panasonic olympus + other 4/3rders and can even be adapted to Nikon and Canon.

If you're going to change the system would it not make sense to change the name? I wonder if the lenses are going to be different how many consumers will buy Micro 4/3rds lenses thinking they'll fit on standard 4/3rds cameras, only to find that they lose their near focus because the lens sits soo much closer to the sensor...

I'm guessing here anyway.

From the article linked earlier:

"The new format has three key technical differences: (1) roughly half the flange back distance (distance from mount to the sensor), (2) a smaller diameter lens mount (6 mm smaller) and (3) two additional contact points for lens-to-body communication (now 11 points)."

Point number 1 means that the focal to film plane will be shorter than the non-micro 4/3 format lenses. Point number 3 means that the original 9 communication points from the non-micro 4/3 system will be maintained. Both points open the door for a supplementary adapter that can be attached to the body, passing the 9 communication points AND providing the proper film plan distance to leverage the regular 4/3 lens that exist today.

of course... that's my conclusion.

 

[Samriel]

I think in a few years time most dSLRs will have a EVF. They're cheeper to make, better to use, remove the lame mirror that limits the camera's actuational life-span and again reduces costs, and brings these beasts into full compatibility with Live View and the coming wave of video acquisition!

I don't know why, but this post really gives me the creeps. I must be getting old... :mrgreen:

 

[Iron Flatline]

This is actually one of the most exciting announcements in a long while. This is the first real new digital photographic technology. Digital SLRs (and digital Rangefinders) are just that - digital versions of existing technology. The idea that we need a retro-focal design is actually pretty silly - and the fact that a sensor needs to be a certain size only makes sense if the technology forces you to fill the shoes of something that went before it. The worst thing about dSLRs is how large they are - and digital Rangefinders lack some of the features that make SLRs so successful. But if you could take modern technology - not just in sensor design, but also in lenses, control and UI - and combine that with interchangable lenses... well, it would mean a truly revolutionary design.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I dont think DSLRs are too large, (atleast my size camera, I know mine isnt small (w/ grip) but it isnt large (compared to 1DsMKIII)...

I think the size of my DSLR is perfect... I like using my hands for focusing...and using the weight for a little bit of stability and balance....

I hate holding tiny little cameras.... I have a Canon PowerShot S2 IS, I hate how small it is... Too small for my hands...

I dont want a tiny diameter lens focus/zoom either...

 

[Iron Flatline]

Good for you.

...others (like me) much prefer smaller cameras. If you've ever done any street photography or travel shooting with a Rangefinder, you really wonder how people with SLRs ever get a decent shot.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Well, I think most people prefer big and bulky (to an extent) to feel and hold...not some small thing that is light and feels like it will break in their hands...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

It's the ego

 

[prodigy2k7]

Lol...

 

[keith204]

It turns out that 4/3 is a ratio and a size. Makes more sense. I went to Circuit City and held a 420. Pretty incredible how small it is. I prefer a larger camera body when holding the camera for long periods of time...but I don't do any street shooting, and Dr. Flatline has a great point on that.

 

[Garbz]

Rangefinders fill that market exactly. It's not a case of antiquated design. The point is still that an SLR is the only proper TTL solution that is optical. (my parents have a P&S with a digital viewfinder and it is horrible).

Size, weight, actuation noise and f/1.0+ are the advantages of the rangerfinder. True 100% certainty that what you see is what you get has always been the advantage of the SLR. I for one would hate trying to do macro with a rangefinder or a TLR

As for the size that's really a personal preference thing.I can see what prodigy thinks about this, and I too bought the battery grip for my SLR simply because the camera was too small for my bulky hands to comfortably hold it for an extended period of time. I have the same problem with my old Nikon FE + 28mm lens. The camera is tiny by todays standards and I have the motor drive permanently attached even though I've never used it just to make it that bit larger and more comfortable.

 

[Bifurcator]

Just to add a voice I prefer small! "Big and bulky" is as someone mentioned, for people that need a show piece for some reason or another!

I want a metal body, solid as a brick, and just a little less wide than an F3, OM1, OM4, and considerable less than the A1. Without a lens or with a pancake lens it should just about slip into a shirt pocket but hopefully be too heavy for it.

I understand the reasons for the size of the F4 and F5, the D3 and others like it but I don't want it. The reasons are BTW, just as Mr. Flatline pointed out.

Yup just about right or just a tad on the wide side and a perfect weight! Notice the lack of a pentaprism.

Yup! Pocketable! See...
​

.

 

[Bifurcator]

It turns out that 4/3 is a ratio and a size.

Ah that explains allot! Good researching! :thumbup:

True 100% certainty that what you see is what you get has always been the advantage of the SLR.

But of course you know that this does NOT apply to a dSLR. What you get is an electronic digitization of an image. What you see is an optical reflection. No match. With a good EVF it actually is WYSIWYG and of course it too is TTL.