Why four thirds?

[MissionMan]

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).


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.

I don't believe it's correct to say that format has nothing to do with it. it is easier to stabilise a small sensor than a large sensor. This is one of the reasons that having fast AF in a large lens is more expensive than a small lens, bigger motors required to move bigger lens elements and in the absense of an unlimited size and budget when pricing a camera, size of the sensor is very much of an contributing factor. So, yes, like FF has advantages of micro 4/3, it also has disadvantages believe it or not.

[ameerat42]

JK. A pertinent proposal post a persuasive paean
(Olympus sounds quite a system.)

I think the general thrust of this thread regarding the "4/3 of the 4/3" has been a
well-rounded "as you like it"*, with lots of sub-plots, and palace intrigues to keep the
interest going.

* The titles of some other works may sound disingenuous

[MissionMan]

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

Agree Rick. I think many people mistake photography with photographic gear obsession.

There are two kinds of people I notice on photography forums (not everyone, but the gear obsessed ones):

1. The vast majority of people who spend their lives as evangelists for full frame aren't actually good enough for it to make a difference. They aren't pushing the envelope from a full frame vs apsc perspective. They aren't good enough for the DOF to make a difference and they aren't shooting in challenging enough conditions for the 1 stop extra of dynamic range or the 1 stop extra of low light performance to actually make a difference. For them, the selection of full frame is nothing more than a choice rather than a necessity, so they can take bad photos of their cats at ISO12800 to post to photography forums and boast about the technical capability of their cameras
2. There are a set of people who switch brands every couple of years chasing perfection, and much like the above, it doesn't actually impact them. Many of them have poor glass, largely because the cost of changing systems every 2 years is so high that they can't actually invest in glass. They switch from Canon to Nikon to Fuji to Sony, chasing miracles they see in other people's photos and wondering why their crap choice in lenses on A7iii doesn't perform as well.

[ameerat42]

MM.
3. Me - and my ilk.

[John King]

JK. A pertinent proposal post a persuasive paean
(Olympus sounds quite a system.)

I think the general thrust of this thread regarding the "4/3 of the 4/3" has been a
well-rounded "as you like it"*, with lots of sub-plots, and palace intrigues to keep the
interest going.

* The titles of some other works may sound disingenuous

Am, I do my own printing on my Epson R3880 because I'm not prepared to accept what the "professional" print shops do.

So I often print at A2 size, then examine the print with a 4x magnifying glass ...

Leaving a little larger shooting envelope aside, I'm yet to see a 135 format image that is noticeably better than what I can produce.

Theoretical differences are often just that - theoretical ...

Once one gets over about ISO 200, DR and other advantages tend to vapourise. No camera has good DR at ISO 6400! However, if one is experienced, one can often get acceptable, printable images above this. I would suggest it often has more to do with the photographer's knowledge and experience than the size of their ... sensor ... .

- - - Updated - - -

Agree Rick. I think many people mistake photography with photographic gear obsession.

There are two kinds of people I notice on photography forums (not everyone, but the gear obsessed ones):

1. The vast majority of people who spend their lives as evangelists for full frame aren't actually good enough for it to make a difference. They aren't pushing the envelope from a full frame vs apsc perspective. They aren't good enough for the DOF to make a difference and they aren't shooting in challenging enough conditions for the 1 stop extra of dynamic range or the 1 stop extra of low light performance to actually make a difference. For them, the selection of full frame is nothing more than a choice rather than a necessity, so they can take bad photos of their cats at ISO12800 to post to photography forums and boast about the technical capability of their cameras

Are these bad enough, MM?

All with E-M1 MkI. My E-M1 MkII is about one stop better for both DR and noise.
Rosa at ISO 6400 ... All from OoC JPEGs, with just automated PP (automatic PS action), all hand held without support:

With my 12-50 macro kit lens in macro mode:



With FTs 14-54 MkII with adapter:


Poor light test shot with 40-150 "plastic fantastic":

There are a set of people who switch brands every couple of years chasing perfection, and much like the above, it doesn't actually impact them. Many of them have poor glass, largely because the cost of changing systems every 2 years is so high that they can't actually invest in glass. They switch from Canon to Nikon to Fuji to Sony, chasing miracles they see in other people's photos and wondering why their crap choice in lenses on A7iii doesn't perform as well.

Totally agree. Would add another - Those who appear to take delight in rubbishing the choices of how ohters choose to spend their (usually) hard-earned readies ...

[Ross the fiddler]

Getting back to, "Why Four Thirds". It allows me to crop 3:2 when & where (vertically) I want. Since I save both JPEG & raw I can set the camera to the 3:2 ratio if I want, but there is still the whole 4:3 image in raw to play with. Actually, I've noticed when cropping a wide (12mm) image in Capture One there is an extra amount of image available that was cropped with the lens distortion compensation & I can use that extra amount, particular when cropping for 3:2 & 16:9 output, so I end up with a wider image than was designed & intended with that lens (12-40).

BTW, in response to a comment above, Olympus DSLR's were fine except for the limits with those Panasonic sensors (particularly the small range of ISO) that was being used then. The E-3 was a favoured camera for many users (including some pros).
The other thing that sometimes gets misunderstood with the less aware is that the Four Thirds sensor is used in Micro Four Thirds camera, not the sensor being 'Micro'. I think they should have named the later system as "Mirrorless Four Thirds".

[Nick Cliff]

Rick and MM are correct about not obsessing about your gear we just need to get out and enjoy the world around us.
I have seen photos taken by a young Italian lady with a Canon S95 that are very humbling of birds that I am left wondering about the gear obsession many of us have.
Her superb composition and processing skills can create photos that can compete with guys with $5,000 setups at the very minimum who really struggle to match this artistry and skill set.
I sometimes wonder how many potentially great photos are ruined for the want of a good tripod and ball head with the heavier professional camera systems.
If you can concentrate on your composition skill set and master your cameras settings you can and will produce beautiful photos.
Go to art galleries and look at the work of the great impressionist and landscape artists who often do not give a flying fig about sharpness and are more concerned with composition and color palette.
There is an American photographer with a little point and shoot camera in North Dakota (I often see his photos on display on Flickr) that sells photos.
Having spent almost a year working in North Dakota on the prairie lands I would not call this an easy spot to take great landscape photos yet this guy does it all the time and I am left with great admiration for his artistic eye and skill set.
Most of us if we visit the USA would go to Oxbow bend to photograph the Grand Tetons for example, I am not sure this guy can afford to do this.
I would not be too concerned about the 4/3-2/3 crop bit, it is a very capable system and should deliver you wonderful photos consistently.

cheers Nick

[arthurking83]

Rick and MM are correct about not obsessing about your gear ....

My personal opinion of gear obsessiveness is that it's good for the community as a whole.

If we didn't have 'gear obsessives', we wouldn't have the geeks that hack lenses, hack camera firmwares, hack camera sensors .. etc. etc.

So to say ... "don't obsess about gear", I think, is to understate the value of what some gear can do for you.
Not obsessing over gear wouldn't have given us IR sensor capture, Canon's Magic Lantern firmware hack,(Nikon also have firmware hacks, but much limited(and harder)), obscure lens combinations.

My belief is that obsessing over gear can only be a good thing! It improves the breed!
And for the most part, we all obsess over gear in one way or another anyhow! Whether an individual prefer to admit it or not is entirely up to them.

BUT!(think of it this way!)
Have you made more than one camera gear purchase? If not, then you truly haven't obsessed over any gear .. ever.
You may have purchased your first camera at some point in your photographic endeavours, and never thought to buy anything else .. ever again. You may still be shooting with the old P&S from 1999 maybe.

But if you bought a camera system, and then either updated that camera system with additional gear, like flashes, lenses, tripods .. etc, etc .. or even changed formats from whatever to whatever else .. then you have in a way obsessed about gear.

Your last system was probably too large. Or maybe too small, maybes it wasn't giving you good high ISO results, or dynamic range. Quite possibly your first lenses weren't giving you the shallow DOF you craved, or the wide FOV you really wanted!
Any of those excuses used for justification on the acquisition of additional 'gear' ... makes for a 'gear obsessive'!


@ John!! No point trying to convince me otherwise of the points I was trying to make in my previous post.

So for the sake of 101% clarity, I'll say this again: I don't have any issue with your choice of gear. That you found your nirvana is great to read about.

My point was simple. The 12-100 f/4 lens appears to be a great 12-100 f/4 lens.
I have the issue that it's NOT a 24-200 f/4(eq) lens tho when the ignorant claim it to have "such and such" equivalence. I'm not a big fan of selective equivalence. The equivalence factor of that lens to the 135 format is as a 24-200mm f/8 .. pure and simple.

In fact, the entire notion of 'equivalence' is stupid IMO!
It should never have started in the first place. But now that it seems to be so pervasive in the photography gear arena, it would be better practise for it to be used in it's entirety, and not selectively. Otherwise, just don't use it(which would be the best path forward).

[ameerat42]

AK, we're on an equivalent footing with our views on "equivalence".

- - - Updated - - -

---- or ----

[Nick Cliff]

Arthur I agree you do want to research your camera systems capabilities before you purchase a new camera system and then enjoy taking photos

[MissionMan]

My personal opinion of gear obsessiveness is that it's good for the community as a whole.

I disagree. I've seen gear wars erupt more regularly than political wars. Gear obsession is good when it doesn't result in degrading other users selections or an obsession to the point that having the gear is more important than what you can do with the gear.

In the past I've seen numerous Nikon and Canon fans degrade other choices as if their choice in gear entitles them to be part of a special club of "I am better than you", when in all honesty, their photos are crap and nothing special. Sometimes it's brand wars, sometimes it's full frame vs APSC, but the one question I always love to ask them is "Show me a photo YOU TOOK that couldn't have been taken with X" and 99.9% of the time you hear crickets or they produce some second rate photo. Why? Because the really good photographers who can produce those photos don't need to sit on forums whining about how good their gear is, they are out actually taking photos.

More recently, it's the Sony users that have joined a special clan of what I refer to as "born again Sony users", people who feel the need to switch and then annoy everyone else into switching on forums the basis that if they don't convert their colleagues, they'll find themselves heading to photography hell like some modern day photography equivalents of religious fanatics. Obscure functionality like eye detect that photographers have lived with for years suddenly becomes the differentiator in their photography because they couldn't be bothered to learn how to use their previous AF system on a pro body.

[John King]

@ John!! No point trying to convince me otherwise of the points I was trying to make in my previous post.

So for the sake of 101% clarity, I'll say this again: I don't have any issue with your choice of gear. That you found your nirvana is great to read about.

@arthurking83, I haven't found "Nirvana", in photography or elsewhere! I'm actually an Atheist ... My (digital) cameras of choice suit me, and what I photograph. They do not have to suit anyone else. Nor do I consider them "perfect", whatever that might mean ... merely suitable for my wants/needs.

My point was simple. The 12-100 f/4 lens appears to be a great 12-100 f/4 lens.
I have the issue that it's NOT a 24-200 f/4(eq) lens tho when the ignorant claim it to have "such and such" equivalence. I'm not a big fan of selective equivalence. The equivalence factor of that lens to the 135 format is as a 24-200mm f/8 .. pure and simple.

The 12-100 f/4 has an angle of view that is (approximately) equal to a 24-200 lens on a 135 format camera (I flatly refuse to call this "full frame", because this term is meaningless in the context it is usually used, and very often forms the basis of a subtle put down to those who choose to use other formats ... ). However, except for its apparent DoF, it is and remains an f/4 lens for all other purposes (e.g. light gathering, exposure calculations). Apparent DoF may be an aesthetic parameter in a photograph, but plays no part whatsoever as an exposure parameter (see further below).

Having fought in the DPR "equivalence wars" for over 10 years, I'm pretty well versed in the convolutions of that "theory". As I said before, I have no desire to revisit those things here! However, a few points should be made.

1) Leaving aside the obvious things, a photograph is an amalgam of two completely different sets of parameters - aesthetic and exposure. DoF is an aesthetic parameter. Exposure consists of the aggregate of the settings and features of the camera that are used to acquire the 'correct' exposure ("correct" = the exposure that the photographer desires to achieve). One of these is the angle of view of the lens. For convenience, most of us abbreviate this to an effective FL expressed in 135 format terms (when talking about these things), even though this is incorrect. There also needs to be an adjustment for aspect ratio as well as sensor size. This is only rarely even attempted. Other factors that contribute to the exposure set used are the relative aperture and shutter speed, as well as contemplating how our particular camera responds to its ISO setting.

2) While the FL of any given lens never changes (or range for a zoom), its angle of view changes markedly depending on the aspect ratio and size of the sensor it is in front of. Its absolute and relative aperture does not change, but the apparent depth of field (distance of apparent focus) does change.

3) Also, if a "correct exposure" is ISO 200, f/5.6 @ 1/100th for my Rolleiflex 2.8f 6x6 camera, this will also be the correct exposure for my 135 format cameras, a 4x5" camera, my FTs/mFTs cameras, or my 8mm Minox. Exposure does not change with format. If it were otherwise, light meters would be useless ...

4) There is no such thing as "equivalent aperture", except for apparent DoF, and this is a function of the AoV of the lens, not its aperture. By definition, all lenses will deliver the same light intensity per unit area at the same f-stop (I will leave the arcane discussion about t-stops and f-stops out of this, other than to mention that I am aware of the difference ... ). My f/1.4 (etc) OM 135 format lenses do not magically become some other f-stop when put in front of my FTs/mFTs sensors. They remain exactly the same (except for apparent DoF ... For those not aware of this fine distinction, a lens does not actually have any DoF. All lenses focus at one distance and one distance only when focused. The apparent DoF arises because our eye/brain system cannot perceive accurately when something is in precise focus, so accepts things that are relatively close to being in focus as being in focus).

5) As I previously demonstrated with the shot of the prunus blossom, achieving sufficient apparent DoF in any given situation is much more often a problem than the converse.

6) There is a Nikon USA directive regarding using their high MPx count sensor cameras at apertures smaller than f/8 due to the encroachment of very visible diffraction effects by f/11 and smaller. I have a link to this bulletin somewhere. From my own experience, different lenses exhibit the same level of diffraction at differing apertures, even within the same sensor size cameras. My 14-54 MkII starts to exhibit noticeable diffraction at around f/7.1, but whether this diffraction is noticeable is also highly dependent on the subject. My 12-100 is good to f/11, but starts to soften noticeably by f/16.

In fact, the entire notion of 'equivalence' is stupid IMO!
It should never have started in the first place. But now that it seems to be so pervasive in the photography gear arena, it would be better practise for it to be used in it's entirety, and not selectively. Otherwise, just don't use it(which would be the best path forward).

Totally agree. It is used mainly as a tool for denigrating both smaller and larger formats than 135 format ...

As I mentioned initially, I have no desire whatsoever to repeat what has already been flogged to death and beyond on DPR. The whole subject of "equivalence" is plain nonsense IMHO.

I apologise in advance for any errors or omissions here. I have very serious health issues ATM, and these are also causing minor cognitive deficits.

[arthurking83]

.... Gear obsession is good when it doesn't result in degrading other users selections or an obsession to the point that having the gear is more important than what you can do with the gear.

....

There are argumentative, disruptive, ignorant zealots in every walk of life. You learn to ignore those types rather quickly.

For me, on a personal level, the talk about gear is more so about accuracy of discrepancies(as I noted earlier).

Agree with your comment re producing a shot with Brand Y vs Brand X, or Format A vs Format B or whatever. Some folks are fanatically pedantic and just want what they want.

But, with that point in mind and trying to maintaining some balance, there are just some things you can't do with some gear that you can with others.
Hence why most of use here, that is the type of photographer that is attracted to specialised discussion sites, whether that's AP, or DPR, or brand X specific sites ... we are, to varying levels, all obsessed with gear.
The fact that we are here, asking questions(and trying to produce coherent answers) as to what/why/how .... in itself, is proof that gear and how it relates to one's output matters.

This obsession doesn't need to be of a high order, that it only describes an obsessive compulsive.
To me the use of the term obsession can be regarded as a mild curiosity, that compelled the person to do something about it.

as an example: Person A becomes curious on close up or macro imagery, having seen some interesting output. At first they're just curious, and do the normal thing of focusing closely and then cropping heavily to produce OK results.
Then the obsession overwhelms them and so Person A takes the next step above 'focus close and crop' .. they go out and purchase a macro lens.
This basically defines the start of an obsession .. that they took the curiosity to the next level.
At the extreme end of the scale you will find the overly obsessives, and obsessive compulsives and finally the argumentative zealots!

.....the really good photographers who can produce those photos don't need to sit on forums whining about how good their gear is, they are out actually taking photos.

an interesting aside: .. I do find that many of the photographers that can produce the images to highlight differences in gear types, do take the time to enlighten those of us that don't know but are afflicted by the obsession.

[swifty]

Yikes.. dunno whether to reply more to this thread.
But I think I have to make the distinction that aperture is not the same as f-number.
IMO equivalence is an important concept worth taking the time to understand.
Also great understanding of technical aspects of photography is not mutually exclusive to being a great photographer.
People like Jim Kasson geek out at the technical aspects (he’s an engineer by profession) whilst still being an excellent photographer.

[arthurking83]

....

4) There is no such thing as "equivalent aperture", except for apparent DoF, and this is a function of the AoV of the lens, not its aperture. By definition, all lenses will deliver the same light intensity per unit area at the same f-stop (I will leave the arcane discussion about t-stops and f-stops out of this, other than to mention that I am aware of the difference ... ). My f/1.4 (etc) OM 135 format lenses do not magically become some other f-stop when put in front of my FTs/mFTs sensors. They remain exactly the same (except for apparent DoF ... For those not aware of this fine distinction, a lens does not actually have any DoF. All lenses focus at one distance and one distance only when focused. The apparent DoF arises because our eye/brain system cannot perceive accurately when something is in precise focus, so accepts things that are relatively close to being in focus as being in focus).

....

I have to be honest, I'm not fully understanding what you're trying to convey in your reply, but it came across to me that the implication is that the aperture value is more important for exposure than it is for DoF .. or something to that effect.

I'm not bothered whether equivalent aperture is a 'thing' or not, but it's a real concept for various reasons:
(in fact I do know that aperture equivalence is actually a thing, as it's commented upon many times by many sources in many discussion sites).

Anyhow, once again, you mentioned that the 12-100mm gives a FoV equal too a 24-200 on the 135 format.
ps. what you choose to call the format is also irrelevant, I prefer to maintain consistency based on what is the current practise .. minimises confusion! Many people new to photography, having not come from film era simply don't know what the 135 format is. So I'll continue on with FF

OK, so again we're back to the same point that the 12-100 is like a 24-200 in FF. Why is this important to anyone? I don't understand why it needs to be stated, remembered or even cared about?

Your suggestion that the apparent DoF is somehow reliant of FoV is completely inaccurate!
eg. I have two 10mm lenses, one gives a 100° FoV, the other gives a 180° FoV. Are you seriously suggesting that the rectilinear lens has more or less DoF than the fisheye lens of the same focal length?

Stated before, DoF is reliant on two things
1/. magnification(at it's core) which is Focal Length and Focus Distance combined,
2/. aperture.
If you can achieve differing DoF simply by varying FoV, then either your gear is somehow magical, or defective!

But again .. I simply see no reason for equivalence of any kind, be that focal length equivalence or FoV equivalence with respect to the common formats in use, and under discussion here. (ie. 4/3, APS-C or FF)
Why does that FoV compared to the 135 format matter?

Also!
Back in the day aperture was probably equally used for both exposure and DoF purposes, even up until recently in the digital imaging realm.,
But as of recently, the aperture value discussion has gravitated more so towards the DoF aspect of imaging, and further away form an exposure standpoint.

That is, the newer cameras ability to shoot at higher ISOs has seemingly changed the playing field a bit when discussions arise in the form of aperture values.
I've noted this on many photography related discussion sites, where aperture for the purpose of exposure is less important to many, but more important in terms of pictorial results(ie. DoF!)
You read this all too often from 'newbies' who had bought into a system, with a kit lens(eg. 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6) .. invariably the recommendations turn to the nifty fifty type 50mm f/1.8 type lenses.
The curious person never once mentions exposure issues .. quite happy to shoot at ISO 1million. But their curiosity is how to blur out the background more .. etc, etc ad infinitum.

pps. Don't take my reply as to belittle the effect of aperture on exposure. Not saying it's not important in any way shape or form!
I'm trying to clarify the point, that:

The 12-100/4 on 4/3rds giving a FoV equal to approximately 24-200/8 on the FF sensor camera. Never mentioned exposure and how it varies or not, as in the era it's seems to be pretty much a secondary aspect due to current tech.
So in a pictorial sense, the above is true.

ppps. Also .. I get this feeling that you're taking my comments as disrespectful of the smaller formats ?
If this is the case, then I think I've either somehow mistyped something, or that you've taken an unsubstantiated defensive position to my comments?? .. once again ...
In no way do my comment above denigrate any format in any way, if they seem to have, then it's just that .. an incorrect perspective by the reader. Never have I said that the the aperture equivalence is a bad thing.

In fact I can see very positive aspects to it, for example in the field of birding.
It's common for the larger format users to shoot a 500mm or more lens with an aperture value of about F/4, but capture their images at f/8 for the purpose of more DoF. In a manner of speaking .. pretty much a waste.
All that weight and bulk, to achieve what a smaller format setup could do .. eg. 300/4 with becomes this equivalent 600/8(in pictorial sense) whilst maintaining f/4 exposure values.

[MattNQ]

my head hurts after reading this whole thread again.....

All I know is I love my Olympus cameras (except they break easily...having broken two out of three... )
I'm more than happy with their image quality and I only have had cheap bodies - I have a 30"x40'" canvas on my wall printed from my 12mp EPL1 that looks fantastic. Admittedly canvas is a little more forgiving than paper of course

I also love my near unbreakable FF Nikons. Heavy and old fashioned...but fantastic ergonomics - can shoot literally thousands of sports photos in a day with ease, controls at your fingertips.

One should always pick the tool (or camera system) that feels right for the job a user wants it to do. And bugger what anyone else thinks

[Ross the fiddler]

Yeah, my head hurts too!

Anyhow, I took this selfie (yeah you get to see me) where I triggered it with WiFi (OIShare app) & the centre single focus point was on the distant trees & bush across the lagoon (I forgot to do otherwise) & yet I seem to be in sharp focus in the much closer foreground. It was at 23mm (12-40 F2.8 lens) & wide open at f2.8, so the perceived DoF is quite deep (in front). It's not a large photo I have uploaded but I can assure it is sharp (I can add a crop if not convinced). Maybe there is a chance Face Recognition worked, but it didn't appear that way when using the camera to review the image as it shows the focus point there (I wish computer software could show it in post).


Glenbrook Lagoon, Blue Mountains. by Ross, on Flickr

Now the other thing (yeah, I had to go back to the top to remind myself what the title of this thread was) is that I think this looks better in a 4:3 aspect that is default for my 4/3's (Oympus) camera than the often used aspect of other cameras.


Waratah by Ross, on Flickr

[ricktas]

I wonder if @Basophil; is going to come back and contribute more to his discussion. Lobbed a grenade and ran...

[arthurking83]

G'day Ross .. nice to meecha!

.... & the centre single focus point was on the distant trees & bush across the lagoon (I forgot to do otherwise) & yet I seem to be in sharp focus in the much closer foreground. It was at 23mm (12-40 F2.8 lens) & wide open at f2.8, so the perceived DoF is quite deep (in front). It's not a large photo I have uploaded but I can assure it is sharp (I can add a crop if not convinced). Maybe there is a chance Face Recognition worked, but it didn't appear that way when using the camera to review the image as it shows the focus point there ....

Kind'a makes sense, AND .. I've always had this theory that cameras may be smarter(or more accurately programmed to be smarter) that we think they already are.

Going back to the DOF/comparative aperture, DOF is a bit of a strange beast, and by that I mean that DOF isn't a linear thing, when you look at it from a tech point of view.
DoF gets deeper, the further out your focus distance ends up at. at with shorter focal lengths, this 'accelerated' focus distance/DOF relationship is even more pronounced.
So, looking at it from the theoretical aspect of a DoF calculator, what you got in your selfie actually makes sense.
Using a 23mm focal length, and setting focus distance to 6.3m(at f/2.8), everything from 3.1m to infinity is going to be "in focus".

Anyhow, my theory is that the manufacturer knows it's gear quite well, and even if a non manufacturer but still automated bit of gear is used in auto mode, then the camera may still do the following process.
The process is, that it may try to maximise the DoF using the knowledge of focal length, and the chosen focus point. If the focus point is set to one that may be a great distance, the cameras AF system has a table of DoF programmed within it's electronics, and sets a focus distance to achieve an appropriately deep DoF. .. that is, it doesn't just use the furthest focus distance that the lens is capable of, probably just a wee bit back from that point.

Also, check your lens for this: I'd say being a 12-40mm lens, I'd say that the focus distance markings probably stop at about the 3-5m range. The reason will be that beyond about that distance, it kin'd makes a lot less difference.

At a guess, you're probably 4(-ish) meters from the camera. If so, then you're within the calculated DoF range for the camera to set focus distance to 6m or so.
Obviously the grassy growth in the foreground is OOF too, at such a deep focus distance.

[arthurking83]

Obviously the thread descended into an off topic debacle(as is to be expected if I post replies! ... .. sorry)

But back on topic for the OP.

Panasonic just announced a new LX100II, with a multi aspect ratio sensor , like one of their earlier cameras.

4/3rds sensor type(as to be expected) 17Mp, and does 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9.
It is 3Mp down in pixel count compared to the same sensor used in another of their camera bodies tho.

Note tho that the LX100II may not be exactly what you're after, in that it's a fixed lens high end, pocketable type large sensor(4/3rds) compact.