Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 11:06 AM -0700 7/21/03, Martin Howard wrote:
>Henning Wulff wrote:
>
>>I have heard a number of explanations of this '4/3' thing, such as
>>it being the size of the sensor via some calculations, but it
>>appears to me to only apply to the ratio of the format. Does anyone
>>know definitively?
>
>This might help:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp
>
>And (about 1/3 down the page, just above the images of the naked body shots):
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/
>
>M.
Thanks, Martin. That first link provides the explanation, even if the
logic under current circumstances falls apart.
As a general comment on the 4/3 Olympus system: here we have a
purpose built camera and system that has a sensor area that is little
more than 1/2 the size of the old Olympus Pen F film area, and a body
that is maybe 3 or 4 times the volume of the Pen F. The lenses for
the E-1 too are smaller than equivalent lenses for film by other
manufacturers, but not a whole lot smaller.
I wouldn't mind seeing something the size of the old Pen F system
coming out, with all the extra space that they didn't need for all
the huge film volume and gate (!) being used for some miniaturized
electronics. And, since the lenses only have to cover less than 60%
of the area that the Pen F lenses did, they don't have to be as big
as the Pen F lenses!
Yes, yes, yes... I know a number of reasons why we have hulking
monsters like the Canon 1D, but a lack of commitment to compactness
has overtaken the industry since Pentax with the MX and Olympus with
the OM system stopped being major players.
Where is Maitani now that we really need him??
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html