Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark My point was: why are the 4/3 cameras and lenses as big as the other ones - because, at least in the beginning, the 4/3 system claimed to be more compact? I strongly doubt that the 4/3 system is becoming a significant factor in photojournalism, especially sports photography. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. The Oly and Panaleica lenses, as sharp and fast they are, the slow is their autofocus. The trend for DSLR cameras clearly goes to bigger sensors, not because of the backward compatibility to older lenses, but because they deliver better quality than smaller ones - period. The sport photographers I often meet in the hockey stadium are glad to have high pixel counts - allowing them to crop more off a picture and still keeping enough details. THAT'S ONE OF THE NEEDS, MARK. Have never seen them using something else than (many) Canons and (a few) Nikons. Larger 4/3 sensor: very unlikely. This would break the system into subsystems. The so far produced lenses are made for exactly that 4/3 sensor size, would not cover a larger field. Bigger sensor = new lenses = new system = probably the death of the old 4/3. Didier >(...) >The fact is that more and more magazine work is being done with the 4/3 >format. Its perfect for it. We saw the Sports Illustrated bathing suit issue >guy. Just the tip of the new iceberg. >(...) >I see 24x36mm digital format as a niche without a need format between APS-2 >and medium format digital formats. The need for it is where I'm all ears? >(...) >Mark Rabiner