Why four thirds?

[Basophil]

I use an Olympus OMD EM1 Mark 2. I am overall very happy with the camera but I don't really understand the reason for the 4/3 aspect ratio of the sensor. I don't find the four by three aspect ratio all that attractive in images. I think 3x2 is more pleasing to the eye, and closer to the 'Golden Ratio' of 1.6. Most ready-made picture frames tend to be of a 3x2 ratio, which is in common with the aspect ratio of a full size sensor. I can select a 3x2 ratio for my pictures, but in so doing, I'm wasting ~ 10% of my pixels. I love mirrorless cameras, but I am confused as to why the 4/3 format was chosen. Any thoughts?

[ameerat42]

I guess there's no real explanation for this. It happens with lots of cameras that a certain aspect ratio is
achieved by simply masking off part of the sensor. A cheap 16-9 view on my phone simply trims the long
sides of the sensor and does not afford any wider view. - But, on more expensive cameras that have much
larger sensors, the maximum image size in pixels is the maximum width of the sensor (or pretty close thereto).

But to allay any fear of being at a disadvantage for having to "waste" 10% of your pixels, you actually do not
lose any pixel density in the resulting image. You only "lose" part of the image, which, as you imply by your artistic
dislike of the 4:3 ratio you didn't want anyway. (How many advertisers push a loss as a gain or make a gain out of
a lack! ) - Just use the 3:2 aspect ratio if you prefer and consider it as an 18 MPx camera instead.

Pixel number is an often-overrated paramater of image quality, and some manufacturers/sellers/users have at some time
or other paraded it as the paragon of their product. It is often touted as being the same as "resolution", which is totally
incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: For this model there is another curious coincidence - that the "micro four-thirds" sensor size
happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

[MissionMan]

I love mirrorless cameras, but I am confused as to why the 4/3 format was chosen. Any thoughts?

Just to be clear, this isn't mirrorless, other brands like Fujifilm and Canon use 3:2 on their mirrorless cameras, this is a micro 4/3's thing

[Tannin]

Point and shoot cameras have always used 4:3. No idea why, they just have. And SLRs have always used 3:2 - for the same reason. They just do. Except Olympus ones, which use 4:3.

Note that "four thirds" is NOT the ratio, it has nothing to do with the ratio. "Four thirds" is merely a bizarrely stupid name chosen by some brainless marketing person for the sensor size used by Olympus (and some others) instead of APS-C. The fact that 4/3rds cameras also happen to have a 4:3 aspect ratio is entirely coincidental.

(As a matter of detail, I like the 3:2 ratio. Always have. Except for computer screens, which should always be 3:2.)

[ameerat42]

...for the sensor size used by Olympus (and some others) instead of APS-C...

I'd accept APS < C

...(As a matter of detail, I like the 3:2 ratio. Always have. Except for computer screens, which should always be 3:2.)

Did you mean 4:3?

[MattNQ]

Blame this bloke ...
In 1999, Olympus engineer Katsuhiro Takada selected the 4/3"-type sensor as being the optimal size to allow smaller cameras capable of high quality images. Olympus developed the lens mount and communication protocols and was joined by other makers including Kodak, Fujifilm and Panasonic.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/98...-thirds-system

I believe the original idea was that the light hit the sensor more perpendicularly for greater resolution.
But this was or course off-set by the smaller sensor having less overall sensor area ( and less megapickles) than a bigger one.

Quote of Japanese m4/3 page (translated by google )
Micro Four Thirds' sensor size was determined from judgment of the size limit of the lens made according to the principle "high image quality that people can walk with." In a sense, it is also the limit to making a wide variety of lenses without compromising image quality and productivity.

So basically they just scaled up from a 4:3 ratio compact camera sensor to a size that brought the best compromise between body/lens size and image quality.
Possibly didn't give the ratio a lot of thought


One interesting thing I stumbled on is that sensors are cut out of a circular wafer.
The most efficient ratio sensor would be 1:1 square.
The next most efficient use of the surface area is 4:3 ratio, making them cheaper to make for high volume cameras & phones

[arthurking83]

Actually, the question should be "why not!"

A more square format sensor in theory makes more sense than a rectangular aspect ratio.
While it may appear nicer to the eye, the rectangular aspect ratio is a waste.
The image circle of a lens is just that .. a circle. So a rectangular sensor misses a lot of 'imaging' on the upper and lower portions of what the lens actually projects.

My personal preference would be a square format sensor capturing as much of what a lens could project properly, with the choice offered to the user to either capture the entire image(ie. the full square format), or various cropped modes .. all done in camera.

Note sure about most other cameras, but some Nikon's offer the choice to shoot in a cropped mode(or image area, or aspect ratio).
The options aren't huge, but they do give you something.

There was one unique 4/3 sensor that Panasonic did a while ago that allowed various aspect ratio options, with less pixel loss than traditional fixed aspect ratio sensors allowed.
That is, the sensor wasn't a fixed aspect ratio, it varied according to what you set in the camera.
I can't remember the actual numbers, but as an example: lets assume that the full 4:3 sensor aspect ratio was 15Mp, and a 16:9 cropped version of that same image area was 11Mp, with this Panasonic camera, the sensor was laterally larger than a std 4:3 sensor, so when 16:9 aspect ratio was chosen, you gained an additional 2Mp or so(ie. up from 11 to 13Mp).

For me, the most sensible sensor format would be to make them all 1:1 aspect ratio, and allow user preferred aspect ratio options in camera for those that prefer a specific ratio.
I have many 1:1 aspect ratio old photos sitting on my desk right at this moment(after a huge cleanup of lots of carp in my study) .. and they look great.

When I first got the D800 (full frame format) ,y preferred landscape lens up to this point was always the Sigma 10-20mm APS-C lens.
I continued using this APS-C lens on the full frame camera, at first choosing to use cropped(APS-C) mode, but then after a few shots, changing the camera back to full frame area capture.
The APS-C only lens, still captured a full image along the horizontal edges of the sensor, only vignetting massively at the sides.
So instead of capturing a 15mp APS-C(out of 36Mp for the full sensor area), I got closer to 20 or so Mp images of cropped to a square format with the APS-C lens.
I remember making quite a few square format landscape images using this lens .. then I got a full frame wide angle lens to replace the little Sigma.

So as to why 4:3 and not 3:2 .. I ask why 3:2 and not 4:3!! less waste, more copping options .. etc, etc.(and even more importantly why not 1;1 which makes the most sense.

[Tannin]

Cheers Matt, good info. Have to laugh at some of the marketingmoron claims they make though.

"Olympus engineer selected the 4/3"-type sensor as being the optimal size to allow smaller cameras capable of high quality images" ... Yer right. As if it was somehow better. Which it wasn't. It was (and is) clearly inferior to (for example) APS-C without offering any substantial benefit in terms of size or weight. On the other hand, it was (of course) better than all the even smaller ones. But it was Olympus' great mistake. It was the decision which finished them as a maker of serious cameras. Olympus wound up being the worst DSLR or the biggest, best, most expensive point and shoot. Not really a happy place - too big to play with the little kids, and not grown up enough to play with the big kids. Sad.

(Disclaimer #1: I'm not given to fanboyism these days, but all through my younger years I had a big teenage crush on Olympus SLRs. (Film cameras in those days.) I used to dream about owning one. Some of that feeling remains to this day. I couldn't find any justification for their DSLRs, of course, but when I recently bought a pocket P&S camera, a really, really cute little Olympus was the one I wanted. Sadly, common sense prevailed and I wound up buying a Canon which was not as tough, nothing like as cute, cost about the same, and had a sensor about five times bigger.)

(Disclaimer #2: having rubbished Olympus for doing something different, I am all in favour of doing things differently and presenting the buyer with a choice between things which really are different, not just different brands of the same thing. (Cough cough, Nikon Canon.) I just wish they'd done something different-and-better instead of different-and-worser.)

"I believe the original idea was that the light hit the sensor more perpendicularly for greater resolution." Wow! This would be an original idea as invented by someone sitting in a cosmic pyramid, eating vitamin supplements, and admiring his degree from the Uri Geller School of Advanced Physics. Nice one!

"Micro Four Thirds' sensor size was determined from judgment of the size limit of the lens made according to the principle high image quality that people can walk with." Funny thing ... this was the exact same reason all those other engineers chose all those other sizes!

"One interesting thing I stumbled on is that sensors are cut out of a circular wafer. The most efficient ratio sensor would be 1:1 square."

Just so. I rather like the idea of a square sensor. But it cuts down your width. You get the most pixels from a given wafer with a square, but you get the longest horizontal with a line. For this reason, all the sensors I have ever seen compromise somewhere in between the two.

Come to think of it, why limit it to four sides? (Or two in the case of a line.) Slip down to some popular attraction where the tourist busses line up to disgorge selfie snappers. Wouldn't many of them be better served by a sensor shaped like a star? Or better yet, a heart?



Waiter!

Fetch a cart and take Tannin away. He's gone ga-ga.

[MissionMan]

Cheers Matt, good info. Have to laugh at some of the marketingmoron claims they make though.

"Olympus engineer selected the 4/3"-type sensor as being the optimal size to allow smaller cameras capable of high quality images" ... Yer right. As if it was somehow better. Which it wasn't. It was (and is) clearly inferior to (for example) APS-C without offering any substantial benefit in terms of size or weight. On the other hand, it was (of course) better than all the even smaller ones. But it was Olympus' great mistake. It was the decision which finished them as a maker of serious cameras. Olympus wound up being the worst DSLR or the biggest, best, most expensive point and shoot. Not really a happy place - too big to play with the little kids, and not grown up enough to play with the big kids. Sad.

(Disclaimer #1: I'm not given to fanboyism these days, but all through my younger years I had a big teenage crush on Olympus SLRs. (Film cameras in those days.) I used to dream about owning one. Some of that feeling remains to this day. I couldn't find any justification for their DSLRs, of course, but when I recently bought a pocket P&S camera, a really, really cute little Olympus was the one I wanted. Sadly, common sense prevailed and I wound up buying a Canon which was not as tough, nothing like as cute, cost about the same, and had a sensor about five times bigger.)

(Disclaimer #2: having rubbished Olympus for doing something different, I am all in favour of doing things differently and presenting the buyer with a choice between things which really are different, not just different brands of the same thing. (Cough cough, Nikon Canon.) I just wish they'd done something different-and-better instead of different-and-worser.)

"I believe the original idea was that the light hit the sensor more perpendicularly for greater resolution." Wow! This would be an original idea as invented by someone sitting in a cosmic pyramid, eating vitamin supplements, and admiring his degree from the Uri Geller School of Advanced Physics. Nice one!

"Micro Four Thirds' sensor size was determined from judgment of the size limit of the lens made according to the principle high image quality that people can walk with." Funny thing ... this was the exact same reason all those other engineers chose all those other sizes!

"One interesting thing I stumbled on is that sensors are cut out of a circular wafer. The most efficient ratio sensor would be 1:1 square."

Just so. I rather like the idea of a square sensor. But it cuts down your width. You get the most pixels from a given wafer with a square, but you get the longest horizontal with a line. For this reason, all the sensors I have ever seen compromise somewhere in between the two.

Come to think of it, why limit it to four sides? (Or two in the case of a line.) Slip down to some popular attraction where the tourist busses line up to disgorge selfie snappers. Wouldn't many of them be better served by a sensor shaped like a star? Or better yet, a heart?



Waiter!

Fetch a cart and take Tannin away. He's gone ga-ga.

The marketing coming out of every manufacturer reminds me of the natural fertilisers that come out of the rear end of many animals. A load of CRAP!

[MattNQ]

Come to think of it, why limit it to four sides? (Or two in the case of a line.) Slip down to some popular attraction where the tourist busses line up to disgorge selfie snappers. Wouldn't many of them be better served by a sensor shaped like a star? Or better yet, a heart?

You could be onto something there - Software controlled sensor output in different shapes - make the camera look all silly & cutesy like those FUJI Instax cameras.
It then uploads straight to your social media. You could make millions $$

[swifty]

Disclaimer: I haven’t read all the replies above so I may be repeating what has already been said.
4:3 is a more efficient use of the image circle than 3:2.
Ie. for any image circle diameter, a rectangle with a diagonal same as the circle diameter will have a larger area in 4:3 ratio compared to 3:2 ratio.

[Nick Cliff]

The thing about micro 4/3 system is it gives you great depth of focus for macro photography that I do a lot of.
For landscapes I think I would err on the side of Nikon for having the most capable cameras especially if you like astro photography and do not want to lose too many stars. Nikon's remarkable new sensors and algorithms with big cat photos in trees with bright backgrounds all perfectly exposed come to mind.
My son can blow up pictures taken with his OMD elite camera big enough to put on the side of medium sized trucks OK. So the system can be surprisingly capable in the right hands with high quality lenses in this case being a 50mm f/1.7 Zeiss planar lens.
With landscapes I agree the 3:2 crop is usually a good one, not always as Am has already pointed out.
In rain forest environments the 4/3 crop is fine so suits my purposes most of the time.
Using high quality legacy lenses with this system is very easy too re the focusing and live preview when changing settings on the camera.
Nikon can have problems here of course with adapters when using some legacy glass.
Really we decide were our interests lie in photography and find the best system that suits our purpose.
I recall one person saying the best camera is the camera you can take with you anywhere and not miss the great photo opportunity, for me this has been a big part of the micro 4/3 systems appeal to me,

cheers Nick

[arthurking83]

The thing about micro 4/3 system is it gives you great depth of focus for macro photography that I do a lot of.
....

This is kind'a true .. in a simplistic sense.
But the overall reality is that it's not.

That is: due to the current level of 'marketing vs tech' we have cropped sensor camera manufacturers that feel a need to keep up with the marketing side of selling products.
So (as said prior) the number of pixels that the camera needs to have is a strong sales pitch. Hence they pack in more and smaller pixels into the cropped camera sensor.
The larger frame manufacturers also have to keep one eye on the pixel count on the sensor, but also the other eye on the cost of those pixels on their larger sensors.

Both the number of pixels and the size of the sensor have an impact on the cost of a sensor, but of course manufacturers always want the highest number of pixels for their marketing advantage.

So brand A makes a 1/4 sized sensor with 20Mp and they deem that to be sufficient to push to market, and maker B make a 4x larger sensor camera with 30Mp.

A thinks that 20Mp is marketable, and stuffing more pixels just adds more cost, lowers SNR, or alternatively additional cost in software to counter the higher noise level for a given sensitivity setting.
B thinks, our sensors cost 4x the price already, and 30Mp is plenty enough so there is literally no incentive to add too many more over that number. They need less $ for software in camera to fight the SNR/noise issue, butt herer's no dodging the fact that heir sensor costs 4x more than the 1/4 frame brand A model. So brand B simply sells their larger frame camera at a higher price but strongly pushes the 50% additional pixel count as the incentive to pay more .. for more.

In this hypothetical situation there's nothing stopping brand B from making an 80Mp, larger sensor(compared to the 1/4 frame sensor) quite easily .. but brand A with the 1/4 sized sensor is going to struggle to pack it's smaller sensor with the same pixel density.
The problem with the 80Mp large sensor is simply cost. It'd surely cost 8x that of the smaller sensor, most likely more than that for the final product.
All the sensors come off the same sized wafer(I think they're 300mm, or 12inch) from which all sensors come.
.
If brand B ever made this hypothetical 80Mp large frame sensor, then the only model at a disadvantage in any way (other than cost) is always going to be the smaller framed brand.

ie. what you described above is simply 'cropping'.
A cropped sensor has no more or less DOF for any form of photography than any other sensor size. with the larger sensor size you crop to the same size as the smaller sensor using the same focal length lens.

eg. for the smaller sensor camera, you choose a 50mm lens to get a specific magnification. Using that same 50mm lens on the larger frame camera gives exactly the same magnification, but you get a wider FOV on the larger sensor. Crop that larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor and you have(technically) achieved the exact same result. (this assumes any micro variances in specific model gear).

The other aspect that is important to note: at macro levels DOF is basically the same irrespective of the lens used in terms of focal length. the magnification factor is a high level determinant in terms of DOF.
The issue around this that lulls people to misunderstand this is that not all gear(ie. mainly lenses) are created equal. Those inequities cause a bit of confusion as to what happens at the macro level.

as an example again with the above comparison between smaller brand A and larger brand B:
With brand A you use a 50mm lens to achieve a similar FOV that brand B will give with a 100mm lens. Doing that gives the same FOV as a start point.
Problem is 50mm has a much lower magnification level than a 100mm lens does. It's vital to fully grasp that magnification has nothing to do with the sensor ... ever! It's all about the lens.
This is basically true for all photography, but seen more easily in close up situations. The 100mm lens requires more focus distance than the 50mm lens does, so the 100mm's advantage is greater working distance.
To achieve the same magnification with the 50mm you require smaller focus distances(forget FOV, think now only in terms of magnification!!) this is a disadvantage. Obviously the 50mm is physically smaller in length than a 100mm, so in some respects the gear can be made smaller.
But by the same token for non closeup photography where faster lenses are sometimes wanted for subject separation, the disadvantage is the smaller system.

etc, etc ...

[ameerat42]

The thing about micro 4/3 system is it gives you great depth of focus for macro photography that...

Your idea about this could be expanded on, Nick

This is kind'a true .. ...
But the overall reality is that it's not.

...
ie. what you described above is simply 'cropping'.
A cropped sensor has no more or less DOF for any form of photography than any other sensor size. with the larger sensor size you crop to the same size as the smaller sensor using the same focal length lens.

eg. for the smaller sensor camera, you choose a 50mm lens to get a specific magnification. Using that same 50mm lens on the larger frame camera gives exactly the same magnification, but you get a wider FOV on the larger sensor. Crop that larger sensor to the same FOV as the smaller sensor and you have(technically) achieved the exact same result. (this assumes any micro variances in specific model gear).

The other aspect that is important to note: at macro levels DOF is basically the same irrespective of the lens used in terms of focal length. the magnification factor is a high level determinant in terms of DOF.
The issue around this that lulls people to misunderstand this is that not all gear(ie. mainly lenses) are created equal. Those inequities cause a bit of confusion as to what happens at the macro level.

as an example again with the above comparison between smaller brand A and larger brand B:
With brand A you use a 50mm lens to achieve a similar FOV that brand B will give with a 100mm lens. Doing that gives the same FOV as a start point.
Problem is 50mm has a much lower magnification level than a 100mm lens does. It's vital to fully grasp that magnification has nothing to do with the sensor ... ever! It's all about the lens.
This is basically true for all photography, but seen more easily in close up situations. The 100mm lens requires more focus distance than the 50mm lens does, so the 100mm's advantage is greater working distance.
To achieve the same magnification with the 50mm you require smaller focus distances(forget FOV, think now only in terms of magnification!!) this is a disadvantage. Obviously the 50mm is physically smaller in length than a 100mm, so in some respects the gear can be made smaller.
But by the same token for non closeup photography where faster lenses are sometimes wanted for subject separation, the disadvantage is the smaller system.

etc, etc ...
...

The points are essentially true, but in relation to DOF with [smaller, crop-sensor systems], the DOF arises sigNIFicantly from the
smaller lenses > smaller apertures* needed for same light intensity at the sensor (exposure value) > smaller circle of confusion

* For the same f-stop (eg, f/8) the actual aperture is smaller for smaller FL lenses. But the light intensity remains the same.
(Of course, there are T-values to measure the exact light intensity, which varies with the lens transmission capabilities.)

[arthurking83]

Your idea about this could be expanded on, Nick



The points are essentially true, but in relation to DOF with [smaller, crop-sensor systems], the DOF arises sigNIFicantly from the
smaller lenses > smaller apertures* needed for same light intensity at the sensor (exposure value) > smaller circle of confusion

....

Not wanting to take this 4/3rds thread off topic, I still had to reply to thisie. coz it's still kind of relevant).

Aperture size doesn't change on a lens. You change the aperture ratio. That's why light intensity stays the same at f/8 for both a 100mm lens and a 50mm lens.
Aperture is the size of the front lens(objective) and aperture variance(ie. the f/8 bit) is the change in diaphragm size. The intensity remains the same, even tho the diaphragm is smaller on the 50mm at f/8 simply becasue the objective of the 50mm lens is smaller too.
So light intensity always remains the same with respect to that part of the topic.

As for DOF, it remains the same at f/8 on the 100mm as it does with the 50mm at f/8 .. at macro or closeup photography.
No the physicis of the lens doesn't change, why people get confused about the topic is that the three things that affect lens DOF are:
Focal length, focus distance and aperture value.
Breaking this down to simpler, or fewer terms: focal length and focus distance = magnification!
So DOF is affected by magnification and aperture value. Those are the simplest terms on how to understand DOF.

So in reality, focal length in isolation doesn't really affect DOF. The magnification factor does.

simple thought experiment: (because anyone reading my last comment thinks I'm an idiot!)

25mm on a 4/3rds sensor is equivalent to 50mm on a 135 sensor, so naturally we assume that for landscape or portrait or general imaging, the 25mm lens at any given aperture value will naturally have a greater DOF for the same focus distance.
Problem is the focus distance. By maintaining the focus distance you've changed the magnification(by half) using the 25mm lens compared to the 50mm lens.
In those 'general' photography applications, we don't really bother with unimportant considerations such as magnification! all we think of is compositions, aperture and DOF for a given situation.

for closeup imaging, magnification is the important consideration in a technical sense!

ie. in simplest possible terms:

the notion that DOF is a product of focal length, focus distance and aperture value is derived from the technical point of view that magnification(focal length+focus distance) and aperture determine DOF.

As said before tho, this assumes 'simple' lenses, and not designed lenses.
as an example of a designed lens. Nikon's 105/2.8 macro(or micro) lens, when set to 1:1(noting that magnification is the important element here) isn't a 105mm lens!, it's closer to an 85mm lens at 1:1. It's 105 at infinity.
Very few lenses in this realm are not designer lenses .. that is manufacturers had to design certain aspects within the lens to accommodate some marketing advantage. In the case of this lens, they wanted it sealed and non extending .. hence it's really an 85mm macro lens!

hopefully this little bit helps to make sense of how a cropped sensor makes zero difference to DOF, in the sense that is usually portrayed by common acceptance. back on the topic of 4/3rds now

I think the 4/3rds folk really missed the opportunity to produce a truly unique product in terms of photography workflow.
I think they should have forgone the 4/3rds 4:3 aspect and made a 4/4ths 1:1 aspect ratio sensor. Among many advantages that such an aspect ratio would have achieved, the main one I can readily think of is the lack of any need to orient the camera in any other manner other that what is most comfortable to each user.
One thing I'm really not a huge fan of, is the 'portrait' orientation of the camera(not the format). That is, flipping arms and hands and all that because the portrait orientation appears to suit a specific situation is uncomfortable.
I do it very rarely due to the point that its an uncomfortable position .. arm over head, elbow in ear, etc, etc. A 1:1 format is the same oriented either way .. just shoot normally(and comfortably) and crop to suit or whatever is felt necessary.
AND .... had 4/3rds marketing stooges thought of it, it would have given them an even greater Mp marketing tool to work with!

[John King]

I use an Olympus OMD EM1 Mark 2. I am overall very happy with the camera but I don't really understand the reason for the 4/3 aspect ratio of the sensor.

Back in the early days of digital photography, microlenses weren't used on sensors, maybe not even thought of. This caused most 3:2 aspect ratio cameras to exhibit "weak corners" and sometimes edges on the ends of the long side. Many lenses were legacy film designs, and film is not particularly sensitive to the angle of incidence the way digital is. In any case, some like "a nice little vignette". Personally, I can't stand vignetting ...

The Four Thirds standards sought to address this weakness using telecentric lens designs (those with a very narrow angle of incidence) and by using a squarer format. The angle of incidence problem remains today in cheaper 3:2 format ratio cameras that are using cheaper sensors. Software correction in camera has also mitigated the effect in many cases, allowing for lens designs such as the Olympus 12-100 f/4, with its stunning sharpness at all FLs and apertures (up to f/11, somewhat less stellar at f/16 and f/22 ... ).

I don't find the four by three aspect ratio all that attractive in images. I think 3x2 is more pleasing to the eye, and closer to the 'Golden Ratio' of 1.6. Most ready-made picture frames tend to be of a 3x2 ratio, which is in common with the aspect ratio of a full size sensor. I can select a 3x2 ratio for my pictures, but in so doing, I'm wasting ~ 10% of my pixels. I love mirrorless cameras, but I am confused as to why the 4/3 format was chosen. Any thoughts?

We are all different ... I prefer a squarer aspect ratio. But then, I also come from a long film history that included 4x5", 6x6cm along with 35mm. Composition becomes harder with squarer formats IMHO. One needs to pay great attention to what one is doing.

On quite another tack, my E-M1 MkII + 12-100 weighs in at just 1,258.9 grams. You would be well aware of its other attributes - outstanding IBIS and sync-IS with lenses that support it, HQ 4K video, Pro-capture, very high frame rates, focus stacking in-camera, etc, etc. Many of these features are much easier to implement well with the smaller 4/3rds sensor. There is no way that I can match the feature set and general performance of this camera with any 135 format camera, generally at any price ... That's not to say that some 135 format cameras don't do some things better, they patently do. However, for my photography, I'm looking for a certain balance, and my FTs/mFTs gear provides that balance for me. I can also carry it all day ... This latter is very important when considered in the light of my many and varied structural problems, and my on-going heart problems.

BTW, "Four Thirds" is the mount and electronics specification, and the name of the consortium. It is only coincidentally the sensor ratio.

[ricktas]

Sometimes we spend to much time thinking about the technical than actually going out and enjoying our gear and taking photos. Olympus has a long history of producing some great camera equipment, but it is not worth anything, unless you take photos with it.


The photos are what create the memories and what people like to look at. If you put up 5 photos, each taken with a different camera, without any mention of the camera involved, people will talk about the photos and what is in them etc. The camera is incidental.

So stop being to concerned about your gear, if it gets you the photos you want, enjoy it.. and keep taking photos

[swifty]

Going back to the original question in regards to output ratio and the need to crop, most digital displays are now 16:9 or similar. So we have ‘wasted’ screen real estate when displaying 3:2 and 4:3.
If not for portrait orientation photos, 16:9 sensors might make sense.
Also it’s worth mentioning some of the old monitor resolution standards were 4:3 eg. 1024x768
I think the only common digital displays that are maintaining the 4:3 ratio now is the ipad.

[arthurking83]

..... Many of these features are much easier to implement well with the smaller 4/3rds sensor. .....

In what sense?
In every review published that I've read, as of yet, no manufacturer does video as well as Sony, Panasonic and Canon(in that order) ... Sony's is 135 and APS-C(in general, as well as 1") format, Panasonic is m4/3rds and Canon is APS-C and 135 format.
From this, thee only conclusion one would come too is that the format has little to do with how well video is implemented. Same with IBIS and high frame rates!
Sensor format is irrelevant, and is entirely dependent on how committed the manufacturer is to implementation.
(at this moment in time) Sony appears to be the most committed to video, and Panasonic's existence is hugely dependent on video(which has always been their primary imaging market niche).

..... There is no way that I can match the feature set and general performance of this camera with any 135 format camera, generally at any price ....

I'm still thinking that you haven't really tried hard enough!

And for all intents and purposes, it's all about marketing and filling niches.

That is, a 4/3rds camera(in this case we'll consider that m4/3rds is still 4/3rds, even tho it is different) uses an equivalent lens set.
There's always a reference to equivalence in terms of focal length(nd range), but never actual effective aperture.

That is, this 12-100/4 lens is commonly referred to as a 24-200mm equivalent range, but never referred to using the more accurate description of 24-200mm f/8(effective) equivalent lens.
For 135 and APS-C formats many lenses about that offer this focal length, BUT in every case of such lenses, the aperture is always faster(effectively).

Therefore I don't think it would be an inaccurate theory to suggest that the manufacturers of the larger formats deem this market segment(of a 24-200mm f/8 equivalent lens) to be one they're not really interested in.
Similarly good lenses abound in the larger format arena, and in the case of the APS-C format can be had as an even lighter weight combination(if this is a priority)!

So the comment that the feature set and performance can't be matched, by the larger formats is not due to the format itself, but in the commitment by the manufacturers to fill specific market voids.
Obviously, Olympus has done this for you more so that the 4/3rds format!

I think if a greater effort is made, all market voids could one day be filled properly.

[John King]

Arthur, I have been through this set of arguments so many times at DPR with the FF trolls there that I do not care to repeat the exercise here ...

As for the lens, it is only an f/8 "equivalent" for DoF. In every other respect it is an f/4 lens, and an exceptional one at that. Nothing made by any other manufacturer even comes close at all FLs and apertures.

Here is a photo taken with this lens at f/8. Do you want to have less DoF? I didn't ...



There are technical reasons why the IBIS in 135 format cameras is not as effective, inertia of the larger sensor being one such. There is no equivalent to sync-IS; ProCapture and many other features.

There is no 135 format camera that has a high resolution mode that matches that of any of the Olympus cameras that have it - eight separate frames combined into one, in-camera - for an equivalent to 80 MPx RAW image that is better than that from a 50 MPx MF camera in most respects. One requires a sturdy tripod for this mode as the actual exposure takes around 1/8th second, but 135 format shooters are very well used to that ...

Which 135 format camera will shoot at 60 fps in full resolution RAW mode?

Which 135 format camera will shoot at 18 fps with AF between frames in RAW + JPEG mode?

Which 135 format camera offers a live composite mode?

etc, etc, etc.

You like the cameras you have for your reasons. That is not a good reason or basis for criticising the choices of others that they make for reasons that seem good to them, and are well grounded in the specifications and performance of the equipment they choose.

Sorry to sound harsh, but one gets heartily sick of this sort of condescending attitude.