Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    539
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    FYI: An interesting article has been posted by Michael Reichmann on the Luminous Landscape website about lenses and the M-1. Some of you guys may be interesting in reading.

    Once Upon a Time in Olympus-Land
    Steven R
    Tampa, Florida

    E-330, E-520, E-3

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 102 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    He makes a good point about why Olympus lenses are so good. Even though their strategy "failed" in failing to capture a substantial chunk of the pro market, we are left with glass that will, as he points out, outlive body after body.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,652
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    is it me or is Reichmann, one time hater of all things 43rds, beginning to make sense
    another nice article he posted was about Sigmas DP Merrills,
    and I know he would never have said such favourable things about Sigma even just a few years ago
    Sigma DP2M Review
    Riley

    Olympus User, Pro Photographer since 2003

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
    FYI: An interesting article has been posted by Michael Reichmann on the Luminous Landscape website about lenses and the M-1. Some of you guys may be interesting in reading.

    Once Upon a Time in Olympus-Land
    It's a somewhat revisionist history plus opinion with a couple of errors (the most glaring to me is that FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds are the same format; they indicate different mount specifications ...). The statements about Olympus' goals and such are not facts, they are opinions, as are the conjectures about the reason for various technical details.

    But, eh? It's another piece on the internet. Read for entertainment only ... At best it's positive about Olympus equipment, if you care. ]'-)

    G

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West of Paris (France)
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    >>>> (the most glaring to me is that FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds are the same format; they indicate different mount specifications ...). <<<<


    It depends on what one means by the word "format". FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have the same format if the word "format" refers to the physical size of the sensor (17.3 x 13.0mm), although the mounts are different. In the world of "full-size" cameras, the word "format" refers to the size of the sensor (36.0 x 24.0mm), but manufacturers use different lens mounts (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. . .). A matter of definition :-)


    Cheers!
    Jimcb
    Photos on www.pbase.com/jimcb

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimcb View Post
    >>>> (the most glaring to me is that FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds are the same format; they indicate different mount specifications ...). <<<<


    It depends on what one means by the word "format". FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have the same format if the word "format" refers to the physical size of the sensor (17.3 x 13.0mm), although the mounts are different. In the world of "full-size" cameras, the word "format" refers to the size of the sensor (36.0 x 24.0mm), but manufacturers use different lens mounts (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. . .). A matter of definition :-)
    Huh? What are you trying to say? This is what you've said:


    • In the world of full-size cameras, the word "format" refers to the size of the sensor ... (for example 36x24 mm)
    • FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have the same format ... the physical size of the sensor (17.3 x 13 mm) ...


    and


    • In the world of full-size cameras ... manufacturers use different lens mounts (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. . .) ...
    • FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have ... mounts are different ...


    So "format" is defined the same in both cases. The mount specification is different in both cases.

    A camera's format is ALWAYS defined the same way: the size of the light sensitive receiving medium. FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have the same format. They differ in being different lens mount specifications. Just like many other cameras have the same format but differ in having different lens mount specifications (for example: Nikon, Sony, Canon "FF" DSLRs). The biggest difference between the FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds lens mount specifications compared to others, like Nikon vs Canon, is that FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds were designed with 100% compatibility, given a mount adapter to bridge the dimensional differences and carry the electrical signals and power from one to the other.

    G

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West of Paris (France)
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Huh? What are you trying to say? This is what you've said:


    • In the world of full-size cameras, the word "format" refers to the size of the sensor ... (for example 36x24 mm)
    • FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have the same format ... the physical size of the sensor (17.3 x 13 mm) ...


    and


    • In the world of full-size cameras ... manufacturers use different lens mounts (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. . .) ...
    • FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have ... mounts are different ...


    So "format" is defined the same in both cases. The mount specification is different in both cases.

    A camera's format is ALWAYS defined the same way: the size of the light sensitive receiving medium. FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds have the same format. They differ in being different lens mount specifications. Just like many other cameras have the same format but differ in having different lens mount specifications (for example: Nikon, Sony, Canon "FF" DSLRs). The biggest difference between the FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds lens mount specifications compared to others, like Nikon vs Canon, is that FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds were designed with 100% compatibility, given a mount adapter to bridge the dimensional differences and carry the electrical signals and power from one to the other.

    G
    Godfrey,


    after reading again your post and mine, I realize that I misinterpreted
    your quotation of Michael Reichmann's article. I thought your position
    was that a new mount defined a new format, and I was definitely wrong
    about it. Clearly, we both agree on what a format is. I am sorry about
    my own confusion.


    Thanks for all your useful posts on this forum!
    Jimcb
    Photos on www.pbase.com/jimcb

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: FYI: An interesting article on Luminous Landscape website.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimcb View Post
    Godfrey,

    after reading again your post and mine, I realize that I misinterpreted
    your quotation of Michael Reichmann's article. I thought your position
    was that a new mount defined a new format, and I was definitely wrong
    about it. Clearly, we both agree on what a format is. I am sorry about
    my own confusion.

    Thanks for all your useful posts on this forum!
    You're welcome!
    No problem, glad it was just a misunderstanding. We've all done that now and then.. :-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •