Light and Shade II » Gear talk

4/3 – is it dead?

Admin — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:49:36 +0000

For a very long time, I’ve puzzled as to what the point of the 4/3 system was. Get a sensor the size of a frame of 110 film, and make the cameras the size of 35mm SLRs? Where’s the logic in that? The system struggled from the start with worse image quality than the competition, and no meaningful USP. From the start, I asked the obvious question – if the sensor’s that small, why not make the cameras smaller? And eventually Panasonic came up with Micro 4/3, which all of a sudden made sense. OK, the quality’s not quite as good as APS-C, and a fair way off full frame, but at last the cameras were smaller and made more sense. Olympus huffed and stamped their feet, then got on and refined the concept with the beautiful and beautifully-marketed EP-1. All of a sudden, people who hadn’t wanted an Olympus since the OM2 wanted one. And people who didn’t want a camera at all wanted one. OK, Panasonic swiftly responded with an even better (but less pretty) camera, the GF-1, but it was clear Olympus had finally woken up from their AF and 4/3 nightmare and seen the light.

Which is all well and good, but where does it leave the “main” 4/3 system? Well I strongly suspect we’ll see no more cameras from Leica or Panasonic, nor indeed anyone else except possibly Oly – but I wonder why they would bother. Sales have never been great of the more up-market models, and the lower-end ones have basically sold in box-shifters on price. That’s not a great recipe for financial success…

Meanwhile, the micro variety has been selling strongly at a premium price in the middle of a global recession. Now if I were a camera maker, would I continue with manufacturing low-margin (or perhaps worse!) models when I could be using that capacity to make high-margin product? Er, no, so I feel 4/3 is dead in the water – a victim of both the inadequacy of the original vision, and the success of the far more logical daughter system.

Ugliest cameras of all time

Admin — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:44:13 +0000

Most cameras are either good looking or at least OK, IMVHO, but every now and then there’s something hideous launched. So here’s my top 3 of ugly bugs.

1. Leica R8/9 – a very nasty looking piece of kit indeed, and a real shame given how handsome earlier R SLRs were. A bit like a Kiev 10 without the charm.

2. Nikon F4. Looks like an explosion in a camera parts factory. A camera undoubtedly designed by a very large committee, each member of which felt obliged to tack a bit on. Ghastly.

3. Sony Alpha A900. Yuck. ‘Nuff said.

A prediction…

Admin — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:49:32 +0000

There’ll be a 1Ds Mk IV at PMA…

The Canon 5D Mark II

Admin — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:21:42 +0000

I’ve decided not to comment on this one yet. Somebody had to!

Nikon announce the D3X…

Admin — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:41:23 +0000

…and it’s expensive. But what do people expect? Already there are those criticising it for the price, for having too many pixels…

The answer’s simple – if you don’t want one, don’t buy one – leave it to those who do. Which isn’t me, of course!

Canon announces the 50D…

Admin — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:59:28 +0000

…and some people seem to be disappointed. Beats me why – of course the proof of the pudding and all that, but on paper, it looks great.

Micro 4/3 – genius or insanity?

Admin — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:07:38 +0000

So, Olympus and Panasonic have announced a new “standard”, Micro 4/3. What can we make of this? Another new “standard” format whilst the original one has failed to make a massive impact? Perhaps it’s an acknowledgement that standard 4/3 is neither fish nor fowl – the sensor is too small to compete on a level playing field with APS-C, never mind full frame, and there’s not enough size advantage – so the Micro version tacitly accepts the first point, whilst allowing a full frontal attack on the size front – removal of the mirror and associated components will allow much smaller cameras, albeit without real SLR viewing.
And what about quality? Well, the sensor size remains the same, there’s the possibility of a much shorter back focus distance, but on the other hand, there’s a smaller lens mount, reducing the maximum aperture – the latter two points pulling in different directions for the much-heralded telecentricity of 4/3 lenses. In short, we’ll have to wait and see.
But this basically is a format for a camera I’ve been suggesting for a long time, and I’m very excited by the possibilities. Picture something Canon G9 size with interchangeable lenses and a decent-sized sensor – I’m up for it.

Nikon D3 hits the buffers…

Admin — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:04:52 +0000

So Nikon D3 owners can now fork out £300 plus VAT to double their buffer. Is it just me, or is that an absolutely ~~obscene~~ huge amount for a bit of RAM? And will new ones be sold with the new buffer size, or still with the old one that Nikon clearly now consider inadequate, at least in some conditions? Oh well, I suppose you would expect Nikons to be most suitable for old buffers…

The 67 is here….

Admin — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:32:00 +0000

Looks like fun. Should also be a worthwhile tool!

Life and the Lensbaby

Admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 01:28:00 +0000

Not a lot gives me more photographic enjoyment at the moment than the Lensbaby. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how many people just don’t get it. But then I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who don’t get any photograph that’s not a straight representation of a scene. Fair enough, I suppose – the Lensbaby certainly isn’t true to life. But it can help get to the essence of a thing in a way that a straight shot can’t – and that’s what I like.