Olympus might join L-mount alliance

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
You know exactly what I'm talking about, without any cherry picking on either side.

No I don't. You keep changing it up. I point out why your claims don't work and you try to change it up again. Such as...


An f/1.9 80mm Hasselblad (digital) weighs lots more than my Olympus f/1.8 25

First, I thought the goal posts got moved out to the parking lot for the 4x5 inch format. Now we are back to 1.7" x 1.3"? You really need to pick something and stick to it, ya know?

Second, why are you comparing an 80mm lens to a 25mm lens? The point of this particular part of the discussion was the comparison lenses of the SAME focal length and f-stop being around the same size regardless of format, no?

Third, try the Oly 75/1.8 a much closer comparison. 130 x 173mm on the Oly vs David Hasselhoff's 84 x 112 mm. I have no idea why the obviously smaller "Hoff" is so much heavier (1044 g vs. 305 g for the Oly) but it is most likely because some of the innards of the Hoff are likely solid gold to justify the high prices they charge. :rolleyes-38:
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,844
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
No, Patrick. I will not continue this discussion.

It is nonsense.

If you want endless BS about this whole subject, go and look up the 'equivalence' "experts" on DPR mFTs forum. They spell it with a capital 'E' ... nuff said.

After 12 years of putting up with their BS and trolling, flaming and bashing, I came here for a quiet life.

I know all the arguments by heart, but will not pollute this forum with them ...
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,068
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
I had a 165mm Schneider Super Angulon (eqv to about 10mm mft) for my 8x10 Wista that had an enormous image circle for all the camera tilts and shifts. It was the biggest lens I ever used.
And, it didn't have a focusing mechanism, was not a zoom, and didn't have a lens mounting to a metal body. Imagine how big it would have been? :)
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
No, Patrick. I will not continue this discussion.

Sorry John, but you can not simply state misinformation in a discussion forum about technical aspects of photography without expecting to have someone try to correct you. Disagreeing with your points is not trolling, nor flaming, nor bashing. It is called a discussion. This is a discussion forum.

You can stop discussing this at any time, but don't act surprised or feign offense when you try to throw in a few more points, declare you are done, and then still have people address those last points. Let me remind you that I was addressing another user's comment about this and you were the one that came in, introduced a facet that was outside of what was being discussed, and are now acting hurt because I don't simply accept what you state as being accurate. You entered the conversation and you are free to exit it. I don't appreciate your now trying to paint me as the bad guy just because you are confused about the discussion.
 
Last edited:

fortwodriver

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
1,231
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
And, it didn't have a focusing mechanism, was not a zoom, and didn't have a lens mounting to a metal body. Imagine how big it would have been? :)
"Pardon me while I step around my camera for a moment." Boy I don't miss saying things like that anymore.

Although that gigantic 20 x 24 inch Polaroid camera that existed in the 70s fascinated me.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
389
Location
Canada
I think there is more to making a super telephoto for m4/3 than changing the mount of a full frame Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 lens. Likewise, ultra wide angle for full frame might not be as simple as adapting an Olympus 12-100mm F4. Size of lenses probably isn't just about focal length and aperture. I think these comparisons between formats are often too simplistic like that and that was point I was trying to make with my previous post. I only meant it as a joke, I didn't mean to stir up argument or debate. Sorry about that.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
981
Location
Finland
Real Name
Riku
I hope this puts an end to this rumor and this thread! :)

No, OMDS is NOT joining the L-mount alliance, nor is it going to make an FF camera.

https://www.43rumors.com/olympus-an...-says-there-will-be-something-worth-the-wait/
It would make absolutely no sense imo for OMDS to go FF with their limited funds, and the FF market is so full already. I'm baffled at all these speculations.

And "surprisingly" Panasonic also said they will continue to release M43 cameras and lenses. Like I have said countless times, it makes no sense for them to drop M43. The releases will naturally slow down, especially in the lens department, but it's a complete system already.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Very interested in what a "new kind of product family" means. That is intriguing. Note that it doesn't just say a new product family but instead a new "kind of" product family. So I might be mistaken here but to me that doesn't mean something basic like a new series of f-something lenses but instead something they don't currently make anything of, or so I would like to think.
 

Mountain_Man_79

Ah, yes. Comets, the icebergs of the sky.
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
2,141
Location
California High Desert
Real Name
Chris
Very interested in what a "new kind of product family" means. That is intriguing. Note that it doesn't just say a new product family but instead a new "kind of" product family. So I might be mistaken here but to me that doesn't mean something basic like a new series of f-something lenses but instead something they don't currently make anything of, or so I would like to think.
Agreed. Maybe drones? For some reason, that’s the first thing that came to my mind. Or maybe a lineup of action cams?
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Agreed. Maybe drones? For some reason, that’s the first thing that came to my mind. Or maybe a lineup of action cams?

Those are good ones. I also thought of things like mirror lenses and tilt/shift lenses, but I wasn't sure if there would be enough there to call it a "family" of products. One or two of each and you are kind of finished. Would love to see them though.
 

bredman

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
815
Location
Sherwood Forest
Real Name
Pete
Those are good ones. I also thought of things like mirror lenses and tilt/shift lenses, but I wasn't sure if there would be enough there to call it a "family" of products. One or two of each and you are kind of finished. Would love to see them though.
The google translation direct from the Japanese site goes thus

(A new product of m4 / 3 is not coming out, but are you developing it?)
OMDS: We are developing a new product firmly. If you can expect it.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,467
Second, why are you comparing an 80mm lens to a 25mm lens? The point of this particular part of the discussion was the comparison lenses of the SAME focal length and f-stop being around the same size regardless of format, no?
Because you don't use the SAME focal length and f stop between formats, for the same field of view. To try and claim a larger format system covering the same field of view will be the same weight or lighter than a smaller format is just plain laughable. Go build a Fujifilm MF kit, weigh it, and get back to us.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,467
No, Patrick. I will not continue this discussion.

It is nonsense.

If you want endless BS about this whole subject, go and look up the 'equivalence' "experts" on DPR mFTs forum. They spell it with a capital 'E' ... nuff said.

After 12 years of putting up with their BS and trolling, flaming and bashing, I came here for a quiet life.

I know all the arguments by heart, but will not pollute this forum with them ...
It is soul destroying isn't it John. I'm seeing a change here too, and it's not for the better. Not as bad as the other place you mentioned, but change none the less. I think the interwebz had ruined photography - and when I say photography, I mean actually going out, and enjoying taking and then sharing pictures. There's just the constant stream of negativity, that you can't seem to get away from. And lately, it's coming from within the system, as much as, or even more than from outside it. There seems to be such a miniscule number of people now, that can simply go out and shoot pictures, without comparing and obsessing over how different, larger gear, could make their shots " better" It won't.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,477
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
No I don't. You keep changing it up. I point out why your claims don't work and you try to change it up again. Such as...




First, I thought the goal posts got moved out to the parking lot for the 4x5 inch format. Now we are back to 1.7" x 1.3"? You really need to pick something and stick to it, ya know?

Second, why are you comparing an 80mm lens to a 25mm lens? The point of this particular part of the discussion was the comparison lenses of the SAME focal length and f-stop being around the same size regardless of format, no?

Third, try the Oly 75/1.8 a much closer comparison. 130 x 173mm on the Oly vs David Hasselhoff's 84 x 112 mm. I have no idea why the obviously smaller "Hoff" is so much heavier (1044 g vs. 305 g for the Oly) but it is most likely because some of the innards of the Hoff are likely solid gold to justify the high prices they charge. :rolleyes-38:
Maybe I shouldn't get into this spat, but I'm genuinely intrigued by the technical point here. I'm assuming that for any real-world modern lens the target image circle will be a big driver of the lens size? Is this right? And when I say "modern lens", I mean a well-corrected lens with exceptional resolution as found on most modern digital systems rather than some older lens. I'd certainly expect a 50mm f1.8 lens on m43 to be significantly smaller than a 50mm f1.8 lens for MF. Comparing the Oly 45mm f1.8 (116g, 46mm x 50mm) to the Fuji X 45mm f2.8 (490g, 84mm x 88mm) this would seem to be the case (and the Fuji lens is slower too).
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom