Hi Chuck, C.H., Joel, Wayne and all,
This is an old thread, but I've been quite busy and have kept it waiting...
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Will Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc. release new bodies and lens lines
>that operate like the micro 4/3 lines from Olympus and Panasonic?
I hope so! My recent experience with the GF1 shows me it's the way to make a
digicam... and Panny seems to have no more interest in 'regular' four-thirds
DSLRs.
>Will
>they use those manufacturer's APS-C size sensors and provide lens
>compatibility via an adapter or will it all be new and smaller stuff?
Either because of noise (always improving) or shallow DoF, size does matter.
APS-C sensors are popular and of reasonably quality -- plus many lenses
today are designed for such 'DX' formats.
But another great thing of a mirrorless camera is the ability to use a much
shorter registration distance -- this will allow simple adapters for many
(if not all) 'classic' mounts. If there is a Leica-M adapter available
(about 27.8 mm register), I'll buy the system :-)
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I'm certainly one of the guy waiting for that, I prefer my Pen lenses
>working with 1.5/1.6x sensor more than the 2x one.
So far, micro-four-thirds is the only way to adapt Pen-F lenses (and I have
a few of them: 20/3.5, 38/2.8 Pancake, 40/1.4 and 70/2). They have a rather
short register, very close to the Leica-M -- can't recall the exact value,
but won't allow an adapter anyway.
But without a mirror, there's no technical reason to use a short
registration, no matter how big the format -- remember the Hasselblad SWC.
Pen-F lenses won't cover a 24x36 sensor (at infinity), but an APS-C would
seem nearly-FF for them -- I think their 'crop factor' is about 1.4x
already.
From: Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
>My prediction is that Canaan will come out with a mAPS-C body and 30
>lenses for their micro system.
<big snip>
Very nice prediction, and enjoyable to read!
>Michael Reichmann will show on
>LL that the mAPS-C is superior to 4x5 Velvia images.
ROTFLMAOL!!!!
>The Z 28/3.5 will start to sell
>regularly for $500US
Seriously... I think the Zuiko 28/3.5 is underrated -- at least the two
samples I had (just keep one of them) were excellent performers, way better
than a 28/2.8 I had, which usually sell for much higher prices. But I've
been lent some more samples of both the 2.8 and 3.5, so further testing to
come!
>I'm really partial to pulling the camera up
>to my eye.
Again, the GF1 experience confirms that... the LCD is very nice, but the
eye-nose-forehead triangle is an excellent way to hold the camera steadily.
From: Wayne Harridge <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>It would be great to see a 24x36mm sensor body with short registration
distance >so that various film era lenses cound be adapted easily.
Well, there IS one of that already... the M9 ;-) However, as said above,
there's no technical reason preventing a _mirrorless_ FF body to be designed
around a very short registration distance.
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Besides the M-lenses most other lenses can be used on Canyon FF body,
Yes, and I chose the EOS-300D (long ago) becasue of that. However, there are
some important exceptions: Konica AR, Minolta MD and, surprise, Canon FD --
and there are quite a few _superb_ lenses in those mounts...
>With FF body the size benifit will be lost not to mention the potential
>high prices.
Not necesarily -- the E-P1, GF-1, Sigma DP-x aren't much larger than other
serious compacts in the market, despite having much larger sensors. The
lenses is a different matter, but we're talking about adapters...
>Thanks for the reminder, I had seriously thought about that, I need a EVF
as
>it is important for MF, now only G-1/GH-1 provide this feature.
Well, I have no problem with MF on the GF-1's LCD. However, the EVF would
improve stability. There's an optional EVF for my GF-1, but it's nowhere as
good as the G-1/GH-1's -- the E-P2 may be much better about this. But I
don't know if the limtation is in the GF-1's interface of in the EVF itself
-- in other words, is it possible to develop a better EVF for the GF-1 in
the future?
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|