Lunch with Olympus' manager of SLR product planning

[Ian]

Originally Posted by hschnee

Excellent points, Bob. In a way, it's disappointing that Olympus see mFT as a stepping stone. There are some people and some types of photography for which mFT is ideal; not everyone needs an SLR, so in quite a few cases FT would be a "step down" in functionality. It would be very nice to have top quality glass for mFT so those people for whom it's ideal could make the most of the system. One of the major things that would keep me from buying into the Pen line is that there are no lenses comparable to the 12-60 and 50-200 in either range or optical quality. This may be a case of Olympus being fearful that one product line will cannibalize the other. I believe that reality would be the opposite--making a stronger mFT line would improve Olympus' reputation, increase market penetration, and encourage more people to buy both systems.

- Hal -

Hey - he didn't mean everyone would move on to a DSLR, and I'm sorry if that was impression given. He meant that for some MFT could prove to be a stepping stone - seems entirely reasonable to me.

Ian

[Forge]

The problem with viewing µ4/3 as a stepping stone is that µ4/3 is actually the better system for certain types of lenses - specifically wide, fast glass (both prime and zoom). If the system is viewed only as a 'stepping stone' then products which simply cannot be produced for four thirds will not produced in µ4/3 either.

For instance, 4/3 is limited to F/1.4; µ4/3 can go all the way to F/0.95 (these limits are dictated by the geometry of the system, specifically the exit pupil at the back of each lens and the distance of that away from the sensor).

Also, for prime lenses less than 20mm focal length, µ4/3 requires glass approximately 1/4 the diameter to achieve the same aperture ratio.

Being stuck with a 'step up' mentality limits µ4/3 significantly.

[hschnee]

Originally Posted by Ian

Hey - he didn't mean everyone would move on to a DSLR, and I'm sorry if that was impression given. He meant that for some MFT could prove to be a stepping stone - seems entirely reasonable to me.

Ian

Thank you for clearing that up, Ian, and sorry for my misunderstanding. Yes, mFT is certainly a way for some people to become more "serious" about photography and later move to a DSLR. I do think that Bob makes a good point, though, that Olympus see mFT as a stepping stone (for at least some people) while Panasonic see it as a final destination because of their respective product lines.

- Hal -

[alsoly]

Originally Posted by Forge

The problem with viewing µ4/3 as a stepping stone is that µ4/3 is actually the better system for certain types of lenses - specifically wide, fast glass (both prime and zoom). If the system is viewed only as a 'stepping stone' then products which simply cannot be produced for four thirds will not produced in µ4/3 either.

For instance, 4/3 is limited to F/1.4; µ4/3 can go all the way to F/0.95 (these limits are dictated by the geometry of the system, specifically the exit pupil at the back of each lens and the distance of that away from the sensor).

Also, for prime lenses less than 20mm focal length, µ4/3 requires glass approximately 1/4 the diameter to achieve the same aperture ratio.

Being stuck with a 'step up' mentality limits µ4/3 significantly.

Is that really true? The sensor is the same. You can use almost any type of lens with an adapter at least the OM Zuiko 50 mm f 1.2 on Four Thirds. I did not think, that the distance between the back of the lens and the sensor had any role on aperture. I thought aperture depended on the diameter of the lens and the glass (and the apertureblades off course).

[hschnee]

I don't see why the aperture would be limited either. For nearly all of us, I think it's a moot point in any case--an f/1 lens is/would be frightfully expensive, so very few people would actually buy one.

- Hal -

[photo_owl]

I agree Andy.

[Kuifje]

Originally Posted by hschnee

Thank you for clearing that up, Ian, and sorry for my misunderstanding. Yes, mFT is certainly a way for some people to become more "serious" about photography and later move to a DSLR. I do think that Bob makes a good point, though, that Olympus see mFT as a stepping stone (for at least some people) while Panasonic see it as a final destination because of their respective product lines.

- Hal -

As I read it mFT may be a stepping stone for some to move to a DSLR but some may also move to a high end mFT (but I may be hoping more then interpreting the text).

Good to see Oly back to sound communication and careful messages.

For now I am left having good hopes that Oly is working on another Four Thirds camera worthy of being a step up for all those up graders

Martin

[AndyElliott]

Originally Posted by Kuifje

As I read it mFT may be a stepping stone for some to move to a DSLR but some may also move to a high end mFT (but I may be hoping more then interpreting the text).

Good to see Oly back to sound communication and careful messages.

For now I am left having good hopes that Oly is working on another Four Thirds camera worthy of being a step up for all those up graders

Martin

I think this is the virtue of an open standard with more than one manufacturer putting effort in. Even if Olympus were to stay away from high-end mFT (I'm not sure that is what they are saying anyway), I'm sure Panasonic will be prepared to fill that gap. It is better that we have complimentary effort rather than duplication. Panasonic (with a bit of Leica help) have shown themselves more than capable of making superb lenses and camera bodies.

Andy

[Forge]

Originally Posted by alsoly

Is that really true? The sensor is the same. You can use almost any type of lens with an adapter at least the OM Zuiko 50 mm f 1.2 on Four Thirds. I did not think, that the distance between the back of the lens and the sensor had any role on aperture. I thought aperture depended on the diameter of the lens and the glass (and the apertureblades off course).

The ring at the end of the lens forms an fixed iris. Given it is a fixed distance away from the sensor, and a fixed size, it sets a fixed limit on the ratio of aperture to focal length. In 4/3 case this is 28/40, thus F/1.4. In µ4/3, it is 22/20, thus F/0.95.

Adapted lenses do get around this somewhat as they don't have the same ring. What does happen with a really bright adapted lens is that the edges get occluded by the mirror box, which results in a practical limit of F/1.25-1.30 for adapted lenses. You can fit a faster lens than this on, you just won't get more light.

[Forge]

Originally Posted by hschnee

I don't see why the aperture would be limited either. For nearly all of us, I think it's a moot point in any case--an f/1 lens is/would be frightfully expensive, so very few people would actually buy one.

- Hal -

You only say that because they always have been

An F/1 lens on µ4/3 around 20mm long would fit within the same space as the 14-42 collapsed.

While they might charge an unreasonable amount for one, it won't be because they have used a lot of glass. Now they may need to use some exotic glass to get good performace out of such a lens, but it will be quality rather than quantity that drives the price up.