[Winder]

I think you nailed it with the DR. although I don't seem to have any issue with regards to High ISO since I practically don't shoot at such sensitivity at a regular basis, although it's quite a help if it does have better results at such sensitivities. but personally I would prefer a consistently High DR as far as ISO 1600, then that would be enough for me.

But that is kind of my point. The 2x crop is really good for sports and wildlife..... BUT those guys need high ISO and good DR.

[Aristophanes]

There already is a Pentax compatible APS-C mirrorless in the Samsung NX 100 with adapter. MF of course.

Those of us from an MF and 135 background already decry the loss of DOF, DR, etc. with APS-C. All M43 does is further downgrade the fidelity.

Bad enough this tech driven downgrade is happening in MP3"s. The quest for convenience NOW is a comment on acceptable lower standards of quality. Many simply want better. Otherwise Pentax would have not made the 645D.

[Winder]

There already is a Pentax compatible APS-C mirrorless in the Samsung NX 100 with adapter. MF of course.

Those of us from an MF and 135 background already decry the loss of DOF, DR, etc. with APS-C. All M43 does is further downgrade the fidelity.

Bad enough this tech driven downgrade is happening in MP3"s. The quest for convenience NOW is a comment on acceptable lower standards of quality. Many simply want better. Otherwise Pentax would have not made the 645D.

Which is why I am hoping for a NX style camera with the 36mm x 36mm MF sensor from Samsung. Give me a 45mm & 90mm f/1.4 for that and I could do a lot.

[Aristophanes]

It is more an issue with the DR and high ISO that plague the small sensor. Had Olympus made some serious glass (40mm f/1.2) it could have been a different story.

I still think that a larger sensor would have saved the 4/3 system.

Why do you think it is called 43?

It was designed to be smaller primarily to reduce costs at some expense of quality. Fabs are very costly and beyond the capacity of an optics firm like Olympus. Canon, Sony, and later Nikon had the resources to make the larger APS-C sensor and leverage economy of scale. Oly had no such opportunity and tried to compete on price. Didn't work.

[thethirdcoast]

They introduced 5 new lenses last year and 4 the year before. And they've just anounced a Leica-branded 25 F1.4.

Overall, their lens lineup skews towards variable-aperture consumer zooms, but you can a body + lenses that cover 28-600 (EQ) in a very small package.

That size comparison is pretty compelling, as is the IQ of some of the images you've shared with us. I've also been pretty impressed with the IQ of the m43 100-300mm, particularly some of the birds captured by Joseph Higbee.

I'm almost tempted to bail on Pentax and Samsung and go m43, but at this point I plan to wait and see what Samsung does with NX. I'm hoping they maintain their ergos, high quality screens, beautiful lenses, and stick to their lens roadmap while adding articulated LCDs (I don't care about touchscreens and their menus are so good they don't need one) and a physical dust guard to facilitate lens swaps.

[Winder]

Why do you think it is called 43?

It was designed to be smaller primarily to reduce costs at some expense of quality. Fabs are very costly and beyond the capacity of an optics firm like Olympus. Canon, Sony, and later Nikon had the resources to make the larger APS-C sensor and leverage economy of scale. Oly had no such opportunity and tried to compete on price. Didn't work.

Have you priced the E-5?
35-100 f/2?
14-35 f/2?

Have you looked at the size and weight of the system?

The equipment is just as big and expensive as my Canon equipment.

It is called 4/3 because the sensor as a 4/3 aspect ratio just like my Contax 645. Any size sensor can be 4/3. One of the reasons I liked the E-3 was because I could switch between my 645 and my E-3 and have the same aspect ratio for composition.

The Pentax K-7/K-5 is everything I wish 4/3 would have been.

[Aristophanes]

Have you priced the E-5?
35-100 f/2?
14-35 f/2?

Have you looked at the size and weight of the system?

I was referring strictly to sensor cost being a function of sensor size. Overall mass was not the issue. Oly"s margins were based on that difference. They could charge the same but paid less for the smaller sensor. Virtually every review pegged the sensor as a weak spot for 43. That has not changed. It's become more acceptable in a smaller form factor, that's all.

[Pentaxor]

Have you priced the E-5?
35-100 f/2?
14-35 f/2?

Have you looked at the size and weight of the system?

The equipment is just as big and expensive as my Canon equipment.

It is called 4/3 because the sensor as a 4/3 aspect ratio just like my Contax 645. Any size sensor can be 4/3. One of the reasons I liked the E-3 was because I could switch between my 645 and my E-3 and have the same aspect ratio for composition.

The Pentax K-7/K-5 is everything I wish 4/3 would have been.

as you said, adding a 4/3 aspect ratio can be done on any sensor size. even let's say, the P&S. besides, can't you change the aspect ratio during post-processing?

I don't personally think that having a 4/3 aspect ratio is a real advantage if we follow the logic of it with respect to sensor size. of course, it is handy for composition and if you don't need cropping.

[Winder]

as you said, adding a 4/3 aspect ratio can be done on any sensor size. even let's say, the P&S. besides, can't you change the aspect ratio during post-processing?

I don't personally think that having a 4/3 aspect ratio is a real advantage if we follow the logic of it with respect to sensor size. of course, it is handy for composition and if you don't need cropping.

It is not as important as it use to be. I used 6x6 and 6x4.5 for years so the 3/2 is just way too wide for what I am use to. Everything I do I crop in post and it just feels like I am wasting pixels. That is why I want a 4/3 with a 24x18 sensor. It would be slightly larger than APS-C, but because of the aspect ratio I would not be throwing out 20% of my image. 4/4 would work or even a 5/4 format.

I have been looking at ordering a new screen for my K-7 with crop marks.

[Pentaxor]

That is why I want a 4/3 with a 24x18 sensor. It would be slightly larger than APS-C, but because of the aspect ratio I would not be throwing out 20% of my image. 4/4 would work or even a 5/4 format.

I have been looking at ordering a new screen for my K-7 with crop marks.

I think that would make more sense but honestly with respect to m4/3 sensor size, not 4:3 ratio, it is more like maximizing profit by minimizing the cost. although m4/3 cameras seems cheaper compared to the conventional APS-C medium range dslr, I would think the m4/3 are still overpriced and could yet earn a hefty profit by selling them at $350 or $400 max. I mean let's face it, they are not cheaper than the entry-level dslrs, even so with the APS-C MILC's. I'm not sure how will the m4/3 manufacturers would react against the new competition. it really could pose a problem if they include the aspect ratio that is being offered by the m4/3 cameras as well. honestly, the camera market has become a free for all nowadays. the professional level cameras in the higher end market might take a hit as well in the future. Sigma could had done it with their SD1, but I guess greed is much more important than nailing a coffin on the competition nor making a stand.

[Winder]

I think that would make more sense but honestly with respect to m4/3 sensor size, not 4:3 ratio, it is more like maximizing profit by minimizing the cost. although m4/3 cameras seems cheaper compared to the conventional APS-C medium range dslr, I would think the m4/3 are still overpriced and could yet earn a hefty profit by selling them at $350 or $400 max. I mean let's face it, they are not cheaper than the entry-level dslrs, even so with the APS-C MILC's. I'm not sure how will the m4/3 manufacturers would react against the new competition. it really could pose a problem if they include the aspect ratio that is being offered by the m4/3 cameras as well. honestly, the camera market has become a free for all nowadays. the professional level cameras in the higher end market might take a hit as well in the future. Sigma could had done it with their SD1, but I guess greed is much more important than nailing a coffin on the competition nor making a stand.

M4/3 is over priced.... or at least it is a high margin item for Olympus. The first EP-1 was basically am E-620 in a smaller body and a lot more money. Olympus even pointed out the "shared technology". Same sensor, same IS, same CDAF, same image processor.... you paid extra for not having the OVF and mirror.

While 4/3 may save a little bit due to size, they still don't sell enough to compete with the volume that Sony or Canon produce. Panasonic has had yield problems with their sensors, and could not produce enough GH sensors to meet their own demand, much less supply Olympus. Olympus needs a good sensor supplier.

Not sure what to think about Sigma. I don't understand their strategy.

[Art Vandelay II]

It is not as important as it use to be. I used 6x6 and 6x4.5 for years so the 3/2 is just way too wide for what I am use to. Everything I do I crop in post and it just feels like I am wasting pixels. That is why I want a 4/3 with a 24x18 sensor. It would be slightly larger than APS-C, but because of the aspect ratio I would not be throwing out 20% of my image. 4/4 would work or even a 5/4 format.

I agree with this. In fact I'd love to have a 1x 4x3 ratio sensor. 24x32mm would be a wonderful sensor size. For portrait work I prefer 4x3. Plus, 4x3 ratio requires less cropping for common US print size of 8x10 and 11x14.

I tend to compose at whatever ratio is native to the camera, so when I use a 2x3 camera I sometimes forget that my composition might not work at all when I want to make an 11x14 or 16x20" print. EVF's have the ability to switch ratio's, so that helps, but again, if it is native 2x3 then you're not using the entire EVF when shooting in 4x3 mode....and that bugs me.

Nikon's D3 OVF is also pretty nice the way it masks out a 4x3 ratio if you choose to use it, but again, same issue, you're just wasting space.

[Pentaxor]

I agree with this. In fact I'd love to have a 1x 4x3 ratio sensor. 24x32mm would be a wonderful sensor size. For portrait work I prefer 4x3. Plus, 4x3 ratio requires less cropping for common US print size of 8x10 and 11x14.

I tend to compose at whatever ratio is native to the camera, so when I use a 2x3 camera I sometimes forget that my composition might not work at all when I want to make an 11x14 or 16x20" print. EVF's have the ability to switch ratio's, so that helps, but again, if it is native 2x3 then you're not using the entire EVF when shooting in 4x3 mode....and that bugs me.

Nikon's D3 OVF is also pretty nice the way it masks out a 4x3 ratio if you choose to use it, but again, same issue, you're just wasting space.

I think the space is needed for someone who shoots landscapes and something with wider FOV. 4x3 can't do that unless some panoramic stitching is done or a much wider lens is needed. I'm not sure on how good are the UW zoom lenses that m4/3 offers.

with regards to shallow DOF, the 25/1.4 although it has good isolation, it is still not at efficient or as blurry in comparison with something on APS-C. the Nokton seems to be good though, but loses on AF functionality and some enhancements.

[eddie1960]

DOF wise the 25 1.4 should be the equivalent of 50 f2.8 on 35mm or say the 31 LTD 1.9 on apsc, not bad but not the equivalent of a 50 1.4 on 35mm (that DOF is not viable on m4/3 (F0.7) and would be an enormous F 0.95 33mm lens on apsc (at what one would have to assume would have a huge cost as well.)
For some things FF is better, 645 is better again for the same thing (i can get the 1.4 DOF at f 2.8 or so on my 645 for example) it's Physics you can't change it or we'd all be using a camera like the LX5 for portraits.

The other issue with m4/3 (and apsc to a lesser degree) is Wide Angle lenses. it's far easier to find a design Wide Angle in 35mm or medium format than it is for m43 and to a lesser extent apsc.
the benefit on the flip side is you gain on the long end (for years my longest lens was a 200mm, when i went Digital I all of a sudden had the FOV of 300mm but I had to by a DA14 to get my good wide angle, you win some you lose some
For me i think apsc is the perfect compromise for now (though i still would really like FF with a good OVF and split prism at least as an option)

[Aristophanes]

It is not as important as it use to be.

Remember that boh APS and 43 were designed when prints were still the dominant output.

Frankly, for photography, aspect ratio at sensor level is not really a factor due to PP cropping.

Video is another matter.