An interesting Olympus patent

[OzRay]

https://translate.google.com/transl...egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-08-30&edit-text=

The general thrust seems to be that the imaging circle reduces, as the focal length increases with a zoom lens. I have a feeling that what Olympus is doing is getting somewhat like the effect of a software zoom, but optically, and thus able to maximise aperture as one zooms. We all know that the non-constant f stop zooms can very rapidly become slower (f stop wise) as you zoom out, so maybe Olympus is trying to build a different mouse trap.

 

[kevinparis]

hats off to you ray if you made sense of the google translation... i read it 3 times and didn't quite get it

cheers

K

 

[OzRay]

I've probably got it completely wrong, but the one fact that does stand out is that the idea is to reduce the image circle when the lens zooms to tele-photo. From that I've extrapolated what the intent could be for such a lens design. It kind of makes sense, as it appears to emulate the Speedbooster concept in some ways.

 

[T N Args]

Surely all you are doing is making the f number larger at the wide end? (based on reading OzRay, not the link)

 

[OzRay]

I think there's more to it than that. From what I kind of deciphered, the idea seems to be a way of making a small, fast, zoom lens, and this would allow the effective aperture to remain larger at the longer end (where it normally becomes smaller). Obviously you are going to have lesser MP, but that comes with the benefit of a smaller, faster, zoom lens. That may not necessarily be a bad thing for some applciations. That's if I'm interpreting things correctly, which I'm probably not.

 

[GBarrington]

I think there's more to it than that. From what I kind of deciphered, the idea seems to be a way of making a small, fast, zoom lens, and this would allow the effective aperture to remain larger at the longer end (where it normally becomes smaller). Obviously you are going to have lesser MP, but that comes with the benefit of a smaller, faster, zoom lens. That may not necessarily be a bad thing for some applciations. That's if I'm interpreting things correctly, which I'm probably not.

That is an interesting idea. And even a 16 mp image cut down to 8 mp is still going to find a LOT of practical uses. But I can see the arguments starting to form at DPR already! This should be fun when the impact of this gets out!

 

[0dBm]

Yes, you understood the translated text fairly correctly; although some words do not have a direct English equivalent so counterparts of the words are associated. It takes someone with fluency in both languages to recognize it.
Some interesting engineering going on there. I heard about this from an Olympus medical imaging rep that I know.

 

[tomO2013]

That is an interesting idea. And even a 16 mp image cut down to 8 mp is still going to find a LOT of practical uses. But I can see the arguments starting to form at DPR already! This should be fun when the impact of this gets out!

Agreed. This would have a lot of uses even at 8MP. My gut feeling though is that this is not something that would make it to market - or - probably better put, this isn't something that I could see Olympus jumping up and down about on the feature checklist as it may actually shoot them in the foot with the uneducated market who will still see 'small sensor' and a reduced MP!
If we are reading this correct and it does effective reduce the resolution to 8MP then while a feature that I'd jump up and down about (particularly for telephoto), I'm not sure the selfie-buying masses would swoon towards the camera....

 

[OzRay]

This would be just a lens, not a full camera. So all it would be is an additional lens for those who may want an even smaller, but faster, zoom lens. It could also be the same size as current tele-zooms, but faster at the longer end.

 

[GBarrington]

This would be just a lens, not a full camera. So all it would be is an additional lens for those who may want an even smaller, but faster, zoom lens. It could also be the same size as current tele-zooms, but faster at the longer end.

Yes, that is how I envisioned it. If something like this ever does make it to market though, it would be . . . controversial at the least. It might not ever get developed for the masses, but it might still be worth developing by Olympus as a super expensive, luxury item if for no other reason than the bragging rights and publicity something like this could generate. With that strategy, the goal would be to market it without actually selling any,

 

[OzRay]

Olympus has never shied away from producing 'different/innovative' products, so it's not impossible that it could eventuate. I mean, when the E-1 came out, reviewers like DPR were saying things like IBIS, SSWF etc were a solution waiting for a problem, that's not the case anymore.

 

[eteless]

Olympus has never shied away from producing 'different/innovative' products, so it's not impossible that it could eventuate. I mean, when the E-1 came out, reviewers like DPR were saying things like IBIS, SSWF etc were a solution waiting for a problem, that's not the case anymore.

The E-1 didn't have IBIS however I do remember the SSWF stuff... funny how canikon have adopted a solution for a problem that doesn't exist as well.

 

[Fri13]

The patent is about light focusing to smaller area, that then gets scaled via software back to original sensor size.

The software upscale is today very well done when it is 2x or 4x. We do not get more details out from existing one but we camber sharper and larger resolution.

Benefits are we get zoom that has same aperture trough zoom range.
And as metabones speedbooster, the functionality is same but in this time nothing changes as subject is enlarged and that eats the gained densier light.
Unless the subject magnification stay same, that would lead gained light density as well.

 

[Fri13]

The E-1 didn't have IBIS however I do remember the SSWF stuff... funny how canikon have adopted a solution for a problem that doesn't exist as well.

I never have understood well why others laugh to Olympus sensor cleaning system, as that really is best out there and it really works. But I am scared that something wet inside with mirrorless cameras as i dont know why there isn't mechanical iris that closes automatically when there is no objective. And for "off-line" adapters and objectives, there would be manual override to open it. Or simply tie it to mount unlock button...

Few days ago I was photographing threshing and of course there is LOTS of dust and small other particles that easily gets everywhere. I were not worried to swap objectives on field but still didn't do it exactly under the worst clouds in wind.

And what comes to IBIS.... LOL.

 

[OzRay]

My bad expression, I carried over the other developments without clarifying to which model/s they applied.

 

[eteless]

I never have understood well why others laugh to Olympus sensor cleaning system, as that really is best out there and it really works. But I am scared that something wet inside with mirrorless cameras as i dont know why there isn't mechanical iris that closes automatically when there is no objective. And for "off-line" adapters and objectives, there would be manual override to open it. Or simply tie it to mount unlock button...

Few days ago I was photographing threshing and of course there is LOTS of dust and small other particles that easily gets everywhere. I were not worried to swap objectives on field but still didn't do it exactly under the worst clouds in wind.

And what comes to IBIS.... LOL.

In regards to covering the sensor, there isn't such a cover due to available space. Personally I'd love something like that to be introduced - attach it to a small knob like the OM-4's had on the lens mount or something like that (although maybe not exactly the same... it could jam or shear off when it caught on a screw, maybe a lever that the bayonet mount itself pushes to move it out of the way, thus screwing the mount on would move the barrier).

 

[OzRay]

At the end of the day, I don't think it makes a difference whether the camera has a mirror box or not. If dust gets inside, once the shutter opens and closes, dust is likely to get onto the sensor. The SSWF shakes the dust off and it collects on the trap. The way Olympus has implemented the SSWF is that it activates when you turn on the camera, rather than when you shut down (like Pentax, I think), so that you have a clean sensor to begin with.

 

[Fri13]

At the end of the day, I don't think it makes a difference whether the camera has a mirror box or not. If dust gets inside, once the shutter opens and closes, dust is likely to get onto the sensor. The SSWF shakes the dust off and it collects on the trap. The way Olympus has implemented the SSWF is that it activates when you turn on the camera, rather than when you shut down (like Pentax, I think), so that you have a clean sensor to begin with.

It would protect the base more as there isn't a hole where wind can blow and rotate dust. And it would protect the sensor/electronics from possible sudden water splash on sea/water.

Building an Iris doesn't take much space, but it would require electronics or mechanical open/close mechanic that would require m4/3 standard change if being mechanical. But again one moving part more that can get oil/dust/mud and get jammed etc.

Would be interesting to know in what kind test environments Olympus has tested their SSWF.

 

[OzRay]

Putting in an iris, or whatever, potentially creates other problems, unintended consequences. That protective mechanism can get damaged, can seize, stop working or whatever. When you complicate things, you invariably create new problems.

I've changed lenses in Australia's dusty outback, at what is akin to rodeo events, and not had any dust problems. I was changing lenses at this event and you can see the dust I was shooting through:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[GBarrington]

Olympus has never shied away from producing 'different/innovative' products, so it's not impossible that it could eventuate. I mean, when the E-1 came out, reviewers like DPR were saying things like IBIS, SSWF etc were a solution waiting for a problem, that's not the case anymore.

Has anyone considered the implications of combining this patent with the Sony curved sensor patent? I started speculating over on DPR about this, and it occurred to me that it might be possible that this lens technology coupled with the curved sensor could result in even smaller FF Sony cameras, and absolutely tiny 4/3s cameras.

Then I got to thinking, I wonder if it would be possible to team the 4/3s DSLR lenses (already telecentric, though maybe not as much as possible new ones - who knows) with a FF sensor?

Sony DID invest in Olympus, and Oly DOES use Sony sensors . . . This is sheer speculation on my part, and there are all sorts of practical and economic considerations to factor in, but I don't think it falls into the realm of impossible fantasy either.