PMA Shout: More Support for Four Thirds from Leica, Sigma and Panasonic

PMA 2006: PMA has started with a bang for the Four Thirds DSLR system, as Sigma, Leica and Panasonic all unveil new products based upon the 4/3 inch sensor. New Four Thirds versions of existing lenses from Sigma, a brand new Leica Four Thirds lens and best of all the Panasonic DMC-L1, which looks unlike any other DSLR available today. So what do you think of this sudden increase in support for what has been up to now something of a niche standard? Will Four Thirds push on to gain a lot more market share - would you buy a Four Thirds camera? Or does the smaller sensor size mean that, for the consumer at least, Four Thirds will always be waiting on the sidelines? In a special edition of our Saturday Shout column, cunningly titled “PMA Shout”, let everyone know what you think about what has been a fascinating start to PMA.

Published: Sunday, February 26, 2006

Reader Comments

1. In view of recent trends to 16:9 aspect ratio, it might have been better
   to standardize on a ThreeHalves system rather than FourThirds. With a
   3:2 image sensor, you can get to 16:9 by shaving a few rows of pixels
   off the top and bottom, or you can get to 4:3 by shaving a few rows of
   pixels off the sides. That way all three ratios will have nearly the same
   high pixel count.
   
   Not so with a 4:3 image sensor. First you need to shave rows from the
   top and bottom to get to 3:2, then you have to shave some more rows
   from the top and bottom to get to 16:9. Thus, its 16:9 aspect ratio ends
   up with a much lower pixel count than its 4:3 aspect ratio.

   GARY POGODA at 03:00pm on Sunday, February 26, 2006

2. I think pixel counts are going up for 4/3 though. And with a Leica lens, you may get great sharpness without the need for too extra megapixels.
   
   It's true, though, cropping with 4/3 may be tricky. Or it may not be, depending on how anal the user may be.
   
   We'll see the target analness demographic when we see the price tag for this puppy.

   Dario at 03:05pm on Sunday, February 26, 2006

3. Actually, 3:4 fits most monitors and televisions pefectly which is where people see their photos the most now. As for prints, every standard print size has a different aspect ratio (4x6, 5x7, 6x8, 8x10, 8.5x11, 9x12...) so it shouldn't be too much an issue there either. The most concerning issue of the 4/3 standards will be their smaller sensor size which will hit the diffraction limit first.
   
   With today's lens annoucments from Leica and Sigma, they have improved already on one of people's major concerns (the lack of lens choices and their price).
   
   - Itai

   Itai at 03:20pm on Sunday, February 26, 2006

4. This is the camera I have been waiting for. I love manual controls and Leica lens. I am abandoning Canon after 16 years of using their SLRs and DSLRs. Does is say enough about what I think of this new camera?

   Michael Furmaniak at 05:35pm on Sunday, February 26, 2006

5. I was thinking about selling my E-1 and moving to another system because there were not any affordable long lenses for 4/3. I really like the body, and the lenses I have are great, but for shooting wildlife (especially birds) there were no options that were less than $6k. With the Sigma 50-500 I have an option I can afford. I'm happy, I just hope the lens is available in time for the spring migration.

   Scott at 05:51pm on Sunday, February 26, 2006

6. About sensor size:
   A larger sensor will gather more light (at a given f-number) thus more photons -> higher Signal and better Signal/Noise Ratio (less noise in your picture)
   BUT... to get that same f-number, a larger sensor will require a larger lens (more expensive, etc...)
   
   Bottom-line: for a same equivalent focal range, an identical diameter (weight, etc...) will provide the same amount of photons and thus the same noise.
   => sensor size is not important AT ALL...
   (...except if you are after those 50mm f/1.0, 85 f/1.2 kind of things)

   Olivier_G at 12:49am on Monday, February 27, 2006

7. Oh please let's not use the term "support."
   
   Because all this means is that these tech companies got together to pat each other on the back, to share some of their tech bits to scale down costs. Kind of like how some car companies share the same Chassis and dress them up with different badge makes and skins. Sorry to state the obvious, once again.
   
   So, with that in mind -
   
   Gary, Dario, Itai -
   
   why are you guys still stuck in "Crop the Image" land?
   
   Ever heard of STITCHING?
   
   If you stictch two 4:3 photos together - you have not only just created a wider shot closer to the 16x9 framing, you have also increased the pixel count.
   In fact, if you use a good stitching application, you can stitch side-by-side and up-and-down - thereby increasing the pixel count, again and again - from which point you can simply work out the exact pixel count for a 16x9 framing, and crop accordingly. Once you have shot a few planned stitch-photos, you will figure out how to get great, quality results.
   I know for a fact that you will not be able to tell where the stitches are if the stitches are done right, with some precision, using a tripod, even (the horror!) - some of the software are that good. You can even get great results hand-held, even.
   For example:
   http://www.realviz.com/photo_stitching_software.htm
   
   Of course, it takes work - but if you guys are talking about various frame ratios and cropping anyways - why not go one step up and stitch a few? You're not going to be stitching EVERYTHING, but a few choice ones will always come in handy and will always look great. And you'll have all those pixels! You can crop anywhere in the stitched photo, as you please!
   
   I can only shake my head at the thought that people are still simply confused and mesmerised by the pixel count/ratio of the Sensor - and then turn around and say that people don't actually spend enough time at their computers to do much more work than what the camera had shot - when, for example, you guys spend all this time at the computer typing and commenting on everything that comes through here!
   Look at all that time you're using to just surf and blog!
   Sorry, I just had to point that out.
   
   Cos personally, I really do put my time in at the computer making my photos look good, because that's how much time I would've been spending in the lab room with chemicals trying to get the best results, while getting high on the fumes.
   
   So the point about FourThirds is - it's not that the frame ratio is a niche standard, it's more to do with the quality of the sensor and its relationship to the lens and mirror mechanism as well, and the combination's workability, convenience, cost-effectiveness and sales figures.
   
   A few leading tech companies will always get together to produce shared standards that save them money and time, but also at the same time can be viable alternatives to the rest - and "alternative" is now as important to a consumer as simply not having have to conform to one boring, dull, standard. There have been various cases of consumer stupidity in the past - mostly led by America - that BIG is better sort of thing, etc, like the VHS/BETA conflict, the CD/MD conflict - but these conflicts also have a lot to do with how much money and "support" the tech companies are willing to put in to their "baby" inventions. They have to put in just as much effort in to the advertising and awareness of the thing as they do in actually developing the product in the first place. Otherwise, how will they keep producing something that doesn't sell, and it's not selling because people don't know about it - even though the product is just as good, if not better, than all the rest of them?
   
   Here endeth the lesson today.

   AA at 01:17am on Monday, February 27, 2006

8. I am glad the naysayers proved wrong.
   
   So many people, including some experts who I otherwise highly respect, have "buried" the FourThirds system. I am glad they proved wrong in the end.
   
   FourThirds is alive 'n' kicking! And it offers everything you ever wanted from an SLR system. Including 5 bodies, some of which are absolutely unique and each of which is equipped with a working sensor dust buster. 25 lenses (how many lenses did the other systems have just 2 and a half years after their launch?) that satisfy every need a photographer might have. You want a fast prime? Compact zooms? Long telephoto? Optical image stabilisation? Ultra-wides? Macros? Fisheye? Dust&drip-proof lenses? World's only f/2 zoom? Pro glass? Decent consumer lenses you can afford? The FourThirds system now has them all. I guess the only thing it still lacks is a shift lens. But there are two in the OM lens lineup, and both of these can easily be used on any FourThirds camera with a handy OM adapter. The flash system is also highly satisfactory, with a number of units available, all of which produce excellent results (no wonder since Olympus were the first company ever to offer TTL flash metering, back in the 1970s).
   
   As regards the "smaller sensor size" Mark mentions, we must be aware that the height of the FourThirds sensor is only 1.3cm lower than that of the ones Canon have been using in the 10D/20D/30D/300D/350D and only 0.9cm lower than the one Sony are using in the R1. The difference in width is bigger, but that is due to the different aspect ratio. All FourThirds cameras released so far have been renowned for their image quality as defined by highly appealing colour, smooth tonal gradation and a respectable DR. So except for those who, for some reason, want to shoot at ISO 32 bazillion, everybody can be satisfied with what the FourThirds system has to offer.
   
   And I agree with AA on the 16:9 issue - if you really want to take panos, get yourself a sturdy tripod with a good panorama head, and stitch. There's no need for the sensor itself to be 16:9, really.

   Zoltan at 08:06am on Monday, February 27, 2006

9. eh, I meant millimetres, not centimetres

   Zoltan at 08:40am on Monday, February 27, 2006

10. IMHO, 16X9 is the future, why? , I can only say that viewing the Widescreen Laptop, Flat panel screen, or "High Vision" print of the LX-1's wide sensor, is something that most folks find much more pleasing than the primitive 4x3 aspect ratio. All trends are going to it, why spend time cropping to get it? Start with it, and crop away if you desire something else. It appears to me that this is the logical step foward. If the MOS is what it is hyped to be, then our desires to progress to 16X9 are in order, staying silent about things that concern us is not sending any message that some of us want change.

    nick in japan at 09:07am on Monday, February 27, 2006

11. 16:9 is a panorama format; good for landscapes, full-length posed shots of individuals and a number of other tasks. But you cannot seriously say it's ideal for things like portraiture, wildlife, genre / street photography or general-purpose photography. Don't get me wrong, I like the elongated format too, for subjects that need it, such as my shot of a dripping tap. But for most people, using the 16:9 format is much more of the exception rather than the rule, and not just because it is new, but also because few subjects call for it in the first place.

    Zoltan at 10:18am on Monday, February 27, 2006

12. Framing a shot ideally is as important as the shot itself, the future is all 16X9 for the items I listed, this is not my decision, it's the way things are evolving. If you specialize in a certain aspect ratio, then your desires are satisfied with the 4X3, 3X2, 6x6, what-ever. For me, I am elated with the 16X9, a "Wow" factor that can only be appreciated by actually doing it. Of course, a vertical ,portrait, head shot would generally be cropped to something other than 16X9, thats a given.
    My point was 16X9 is here for a reason, crop it anyway you desire, but lets start with all it's pixels, as in the LX-1, crop to lesser total count rather than the reverse.
    I think we are on the same page, just a difference in basic design. I do not consider 16X9 a panoramic format, just wide.

    nick in japan at 11:01am on Monday, February 27, 2006

13. Spoken like a true, dumb consumer, Nick.
    
    How can you not call a "wide" format Panoramic, in comparison to the other "narrower" formats? And what would you call the narrower formats - Unpanoramic?
    
    Don't be ridiculous.
    
    "If you specialize in a certain aspect ratio, then your desires are satisfied with the 4X3, 3X2, 6x6, what-ever."
    
    WHAT-EVER?
    
    Then why are you so interested in letting us know of your opinion? Your opinion is WHAT-EVER.
    
    If you shoot a vertically composed shot with the 16x9 framing and then tried to show that on a 16x9 monitor - what happens? You would have to tilt your monitor sideways to fill the whole frame and get the shot in the correct orientation.
    
    16x9 is a panoramic format, and it is wide, and it just so happens that's where our TVs are headed, and yes it is here to stay, and no one said anything about it not being here to stay - so what is your point?
    
    In MOTION PICTURE filming and projection, they use 35mm film's almost 3:2 format and CROP that frame to 1:1.85, 1:1.66, 1:2.35, etc etc..... the whole 3:2 frame is there, recorded onto film, but when it is projected back, it is simply cropped by dark borders on the screen to make it appear more panoramic.
    IF all you're doing is shooting still photos for show on a 16x9 monitor, sure, shoot all your shots in that panoramic format and plug that camera directly in to that TV and show it that way, without any fixes or clean up of your shots.
    
    I actually have used the 16x9 LX1 to shoot that frame and have gone and cropped the sides to make it a narrower framing, to more of a 3:2 format - because some of the photos just looked better that way once I had started working on them - those particular photos ended up having a more in-your-face, immediate feel to them once they had been cropped to a narrower pose.
    
    What I forgot to mention about FourThirds is its battery life, too.

    AA at 12:42pm on Monday, February 27, 2006

14. A 3:2 sensor would be more "versatile" because its proportions are in
    between the 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios, which allows you the freedom
    to choose "any" of the three aspect ratios, without significant pixel loss.
    Not so, if you start with a 16:9 or 4:3 sensor (see comment #1).
    
    As for the "size" advantage of the FourThirds system over 35mm, this
    could just as easily be achieved with a ThreeHalves system, since the
    3:2 image sensor can be made to any size you want.
    
    A ThreeHalves system would also achieve the same standardization of
    the FourThirds system.
    
    I think it's time to recall all these new 4/3rds lenses.

    GARY POGODA at 04:58pm on Monday, February 27, 2006

15. I don't have a problem with the 4/3 system at all. I would have stuck with it if I didn't need to also use film and hence be able to mix and match my lenses.
    
    What I'm saying that if you are really into cropping for a more 'panoramic' feel, then pick the system that is best for you.Althought 3400 pixels wide is 3400 pixels wide on any system.
    
    And I guess I really care about noise. I love being able to shoot in really low light, and from my past experience, the E-300 had some difficulty.
    
    That said, I wouldn't own a canon sys. and be talking about the 4/3 standard unless I really believed there was somethign special about it. I do miss the Zuiko digital lenses.

    Dario at 05:36pm on Monday, February 27, 2006

16. Good to have you back Gary, a news item in the paper this morning here in japan, announces this 4/3 tie-up with the 3 companies, with great expectations for the future, that is something to be seen!
    Hope you have some thoughts on your trip, I've tried, in my un-educated way, to ramble -on with some ideas and opinions in a few threads while you were gone, glad you returned, as, PMA and PMS seem to be on the same schedule, yep, your old alter-ego ran out of meds and her rage got the best of her again, sad.
    Looking foward to your thoughts on what is coming out of PMA!

    nick in japan at 11:52pm on Monday, February 27, 2006

17. Yo, Dario -
    
    I really do not mean to be waxing philosophical here, but
    
    "then pick the system that is best for you."
    
    You basically killed the purpose of arguments right there.
    Why should we even go on now? You have answered the ultimate answer - "You can go your own way" etc etc "Different strokes for different folks" and so on and so forth........
    
    "Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals revolt that they may be superior."
    - Aristotle

    AA at 01:38am on Tuesday, February 28, 2006

18. AA, if you quote people, you should give their first AND last name.
    
    Nick, where did you get the idea I was at PMA?

    GARY POGODA at 10:34am on Tuesday, February 28, 2006

19. Wasn't that you that I was talking to at the Casio booth? If not, well, more egg on my face!!! ( on my beard, that is)

    nick in japan at 11:28am on Tuesday, February 28, 2006

20. How I feel about this camera may depend on the price and will definitely depend on the expert reviews.
    
    If the reviews are good, I'll love it if the package costs less than $1800, be tempted to love it at under
    $2400, and love it from afar at more than that.
    
    MP

    Mark Phillips at 11:36pm on Wednesday, March 01, 2006

21. I would never buy a camera with 16:9 format. It is a cinema format, good for only certain kinds of landscape photos. I actually use vertical format in about half of my landscape shots. Sometimes I crop to square.
    
    4/3 is a good choice, though square would be appealing to me. Then you can hold the camera the same way for every shot, and decide whether and how to crop later.

    Berry Ives at 12:20am on Saturday, March 04, 2006

22. Welcome to the real world Berry, time to trade in your '50s black and white TV and have a look-sse at the new trends that are evolving. There is something very pleasing to the eye about the 16X9, wide, view, almost panoramic, I continue to be amazed by the images from my LX-1! Not to beat a dead horse, but, vertical portrait head shots , are indeed, easier on the eyes in 3x4, or even 4x6, that's a given. Seems like the folks that use the 16X9 arn't complaining, only the folks that haven't even tried it !!

    nick in japan at 01:41am on Saturday, March 04, 2006

23. Uhm, as far as I know they like to use anamorphic lenses in movies. So they don't crop the borders, they just stretch the film to get a 2.39:1 AR. Although you're right about cropping when talking about 1.85:1 and 1.66:1.
    
    Personally, I would like a 3:2 AR, because I crop to whatever the photo demands, and that is often a widescreen format. Also I think that widescreen often looks better, for an example just watch movies photographed by Christopher Doyle, especially 2046 by Wong-Kar Wai. It just looks awesome.

    kadajawi at 04:38pm on Tuesday, May 30, 2006

24. An UGLY heavy body - I look forward to the next release!

    Angus at 06:22pm on Tuesday, June 27, 2006

25. I bought an E-500 over the Canon Digital Rebel XTI 10 megapixel. The build quality of the oly camera and it's ability to render 'what you see is what you get' colours and photgraphs with better DEPTH perception. Canon photographs lack depth and do not render colours precisely.

    haider gill at 11:11pm on Wednesday, August 30, 2006

26. The 4/3rds systems are alive and well in Japan, many pros use it, in all it's varieties of housings. Adapters to the 4/3rds mount allow most modern lenses, and older ones to be used. Don't hear any complaining yet! Newer Photographers may be opting for it if they don't have alot invested in other lenses. Competition is healthy with this system!

    nick in japan at 04:39am on Thursday, August 31, 2006

27. The Panasonic L1 looks like a very nice camera. Is it true that any 50mm lens is interchangeable with it. Does anyone know the price and if it is out of the price range budgeted what would be another choice for less money that would be acceptable.

    Robin Roehlk at 03:15pm on Friday, September 29, 2006