4/3rds is a digital camera standard built by Olympus & Kodak along with a couple of others, but Olympus is the main driver in that seat. It's basically a start-from-scratch-this-is-the-digital-era camera system, and everything is optimized from lenses to sensor, for optimum digital capture. Seen how those legacy lenses give you those nasty blurry corners or purple fringing on some other cameras? Or worse- on a full frame digital camera? That's pretty well controlled here.
I only mention this because for some reason there's quite a gang out there that still thinks 4/3rds is a system that has no future. Must be a macho penis-size thing.
I bought into the system simply because I saw back then a nice camera for a good price- the first digital 8 megapixel DSLR camera under $1,000 USD. Like the shape (unlike most of the press) and bought my first DSLR- the Olympus e-300. It wasn't until later that I realized the system actually has some interesting benefits.
One that I just discovered, is that if you want to shoot ultra wide angle scenes with a 35mm equivalent of 14mm, on Canon *you have to* buy a Canon fullframe 5D (now going as low as $2,300 or so as it is probably due for a replacement anytime now) or a Nikon D3 (we are talking about $5,000 here and the camera is not quite out yet).
So yes, for a while, there was no lens you could use on a Nikon digital to give you this kind of wide angle, and if you wanted it you had to pay $3,500+ on the Canon side (until now) for the camera body only.
So what you can do in 4/3rds? You can buy the smallest DSLR in the world (e-400 or e-410) and plug in the ultra wide angle lens. The lens itself is about $1,500 and the camera about $400 now. For less than the price of a body only proposition, you can get 14mm 35mm equivalent ultra wide angle.
But then many sill think that 4/3rds has no merit. *shrugs*
-----
PS: For the record I believe all the current cameras from any brand are pretty good.
Looks like Oly's marketing spins really got to your head.
Face it...Oly screwed up when they decided to go with such a tiny sensor. They didn't think that megapixel would hit double digit before the E1 even hit the market. They failed to anticipate that sensor prices would continue to drop and that the megapixel/sensor technology would be where it is today.
You honesty don't think that Oly now wishes they aren't bound by a tiny sensor? Time to get your head out of the sand, Dude!
Face, size matters!
Posted by: Chuck Maddock | January 30, 2008 at 07:15 PM
Yes, size matters. It's one of the reasons to go 4/3rds actually- to not carry those big lens tanks for ultra zoom.
4/3rds has its pros and cons like everything else. Your post amounts to big time speculation followed by "because I say so." That doesn't convince anyone.
Care to make a good elaborate rational post or you are going to go by a "because I say so" logic?
Posted by: Raist3d | January 31, 2008 at 04:32 AM