Olympus might join L-mount alliance

Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,941
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
I'm seeing a change here too, and it's not for the better.
I think that comes from needing someone else to be "wrong."

I try to explain "equivalence" like quantum physics: it can be a wave, or it can be a particle, depending on how you look at it. You can have an "equivalent" shutter speed for a given illuminance measurement, or you can have an "equivalent" depth-of-field for a given focal ratio multiplier, or you can have an "equivalent" reach for a given focal length multiplier, or you can have "equivalent" noise based on the photo site area.

The thing is, all of them are right! But because "collapsing the wave function" means the particular light experiment is now either a wave or a particle, people get stuck, because they've got this particle (or wave) and it only seems to them to behave like a wave (or a particle).

As an engineer, I know that design is an exercise in compromise and trade-offs. You optimize one thing, and another thing bites the dust.

So, I'm sorry, but I just don't have time for people who insist that their way of seeing a fascinating duality as either black or white.

I'll leave you with my favourite Benjamin Franklin quote to ruminate on, and perhaps, to practice:
Benjamin Franklin said:
I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as "certainly," "undoubtedly," etc. I adopted instead of them "I conceive," "I apprehend," or "I imagine" a thing to be so or so; or "so it appears to me at present." When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him immediately some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction. I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.
 

rezatravilla

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,126
Location
Indonesia
Real Name
Reza Travilla
https://www.43rumors.com/dclife-speculates-om-digital-might-join-the-l-mount-alliance/

A built-in upgrade path for Olympus and Panasonic. Panasonic is already in the L-mount clan.
and the alliance seems failing. At least it can't talk to much compare with their competitors: Sony and Canon. In fact, Canon seems entering late on FF mirrorless market.

I think in the meantimes Olympus won't join this due restructuring their financial and wait and see is the best move for now.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
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.

{sigh} OK well first off no one claimed that. There is a combination of a misunderstanding of what a poster is now saying was a joke being mistaken for what is a familiar complaint here which was...

Obviously, the promised size and weight advantages of Micro Four Thirds has just been a big lie and a mistake almost from the very beginning, and too many of us fell for it.

The familiar complaint being that there is some sort of imaginary promise from micro four thirds to not exceed some arbitrarily picked limits for size/weight which by physics means some arbitrarily picked focal length and/or f-stop.

and then the other part of the combination, as far as I can tell was not a joke, was stated that...

i've thought it'll not bigger than panasonic 100-400mm, because of the speed. funnily, it's on par in size of full frame lens, a little bit faster, tamron 100-400mm.

which as the poster seemed surprised that the FF lens was on par with the m43 lenses I commented that lenses of the same focal length and f-stop will generally be roughly the same size regardless of format the lens was designed for. So a 100-400 f4 lens for any system is likely to be very close in size as any other 100-400mm f4 lens regardless of the sensor behind it.


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?

No, because "image circle" is independent of focal length or f-stop and is a design choice for the media the image will be projected onto. Image circle is related to the angle of coverage of the lens (what angle of the scene the designers decided to project out the back of the lens), not necessarily the field of view of the system. As an example, 300mm OM lens for 35mm film camera has a much larger image circle than a 300mm m43 lens. However mount either on a m43 body and you will get the exact same field of view despite two very different image circle diameters.

Edited to add: And no it isn't an obvious point and indeed can be very confusing You kind of have to work it out why focal length is not directly related to image circle size due to the many web sites and books that present focal length of a thin (single) lens approximation which doesn't directly apply the the multiple elements and "groups" of modern lenses.
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,477
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
No, because "image circle" is independent of focal length or f-stop and is a design choice for the media the image will be projected onto. Image circle is related to the angle of coverage of the lens (what angle of the scene the designers decided to project out the back of the lens), not necessarily the field of view of the system. As an example, 300mm OM lens for 35mm film camera has a much larger image circle than a 300mm m43 lens. However mount either on a m43 body and you will get the exact same field of view despite two very different image circle diameters.
Thanks. But you'll have to help me here... I get that focal length on its own in some theoretical way says nothing about image circle. But in a real world lens I assume it becomes very important. Let's take that Oly 45/1.8 vs Fuji X 45/2.8 comparison. The Fuji lens is 4x the weight and almost two times the size in linear dimensions. It's also a stop and a half slower. I can only assume the major part of the difference is due to the target image circle. What else could it be? If that's the case, then in practice as the format size goes up, so will the lens size. Isn't that exactly what we observe? And of course, if you then want to look at equivalent field of view then it gets worse, esp at narrower fields of view, since larger formats will require longer focal lengths for the same field of view.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,477
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
I think that comes from needing someone else to be "wrong."

I try to explain "equivalence" like quantum physics: it can be a wave, or it can be a particle, depending on how you look at it. You can have an "equivalent" shutter speed for a given illuminance measurement, or you can have an "equivalent" depth-of-field for a given focal ratio multiplier, or you can have an "equivalent" reach for a given focal length multiplier, or you can have "equivalent" noise based on the photo site area.

The thing is, all of them are right! But because "collapsing the wave function" means the particular light experiment is now either a wave or a particle, people get stuck, because they've got this particle (or wave) and it only seems to them to behave like a wave (or a particle).

As an engineer, I know that design is an exercise in compromise and trade-offs. You optimize one thing, and another thing bites the dust.

So, I'm sorry, but I just don't have time for people who insist that their way of seeing a fascinating duality as either black or white.

I'll leave you with my favourite Benjamin Franklin quote to ruminate on, and perhaps, to practice:
That's a great quite from Franklin. I must try to act more like myself!

Talking of... when you say :
"collapsing the wave function" means the particular light experiment is now either a wave or a particle, people get stuck, because they've got this particle (or wave) and it only seems to them to behave like a wave (or a particle).
My understanding was that once the wavefunction has collapsed (by an act of observation) then the deterministic wave behaviour has disappeared and what's left is a probabilistic (square of the wave function's amplitude) real observation that can be considered as though the quantum entity is a particle. Is that your view too?
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,467
{sigh} OK well first off no one claimed that.
You'll have to explain yourself a bit further then And I quote "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?"
 

Arundo Donax

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
714
The thing is, all of them are right! But because "collapsing the wave function" means the particular light experiment is now either a wave or a particle, people get stuck, because they've got this particle (or wave) and it only seems to them to behave like a wave (or a particle).
I simultaneously understand and misunderstand quantum physics. :)
Just to stay on-topic, a local camera store owner told me the L-mount system is selling very poorly.
 

ivanbae07

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
56
Location
BKL, ID
Real Name
I.B.
Just to stay on-topic, a local camera store owner told me the L-mount system is selling very poorly.
Yes. Even in my country, just some lesser people used l-mount cameras. Like some people who using S1H to make a film (cheapest FF with netflix ready) but can't afford (or don't want) to use ARRI, RED, or even BM, or some people with tons of money who justified their photography thingy by using SL, SL2, or SL2S (which stopped chanting thier "if the picture is not focused bad, it's the photographer's fault" mantra, just because SLs got panasonic's DFD working AF, unlike their Ms).

Most of wannabe filmmaker people choose sony, just because the tracking AF is really dependable, even with their apc cameras. Sometimes there's some people who choose canon (magic latern-ed), or even fujifilm (for the people who don't want to be bothered by grading, that eterna is enough for them). Camera without ibis? No problemo, gimbal is getting cheaper by the day. A good tracking AF is a must. Then boom! everybody's filmmaker...

As for photography, they're varied, but still, less people using l-mount cameras. The big 4 are Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fujifilm, here. And everybody's photographer, just because: pretty good looking model(s), and a viral filter or preset.
 
Last edited:

fortwodriver

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
1,231
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
I'm going to chalk up the negativity to the fact that many parts of the world are in lockdown and it's been difficult to get out and actually take photos in some cases. In some parts of the world, just walking around outside alone with a camera has been an issue, lately.

So instead of sharing new photos, people have more time to think. The blog really thrive on rumours and sharing because those extra clicks bring them a bit of coin. You going out and using the camera you have doesn't really make them anything.

But go look at the photo-sharing threads here and you'll find people mostly positive and creative. There just isn't as many submissions right now. It'll come back.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I get that focal length on its own in some theoretical way says nothing about image circle.

Right Focal Length simply says that when your lens is focused at infinity, any single point in your scene will be as close to a single point on your sensor as you get (no lens is perfect) when your optical center of your lens is that many millimeters away from your sensor. What it doesn't tell you anything about is how many of those distant points (the angle of coverage) you are getting or how large that angle of coverage is projected out the back of the lens.


Let's take that Oly 45/1.8 vs Fuji X 45/2.8 comparison. The Fuji lens is 4x the weight and almost two times the size in linear dimensions. It's also a stop and a half slower. I can only assume the major part of the difference is due to the target image circle. What else could it be?

I am not familiar with the Fuji line but a quick glance to do see other features the Oly doesn't have such as weather sealing, an aperture ring, and 2 more lens elements for whatever reasons so those could also play a role. But also while I have maintained in this thread, in defense of misunderstood ideas that Oly lenses are bigger than they should be, that lenses can be equally small as one another for the same optical properties, manufacturers can certainly make them much bigger. A good example of that are the Oly 17/25/45 f1.2 primes that were all released at the same time. They are all pretty much identical in size and use the same filter thread size. They didn't have to be (as evident when you look at the same focal length f1.8 lenses), but they probably made a conscience decision to make this trio match so one or more are probably not as small as they could have been.

But back to your question, looking at other Fuji G-Mount lenses, why is the 63mm/2.8 smaller and lighter than the 45mm/2.8 one you pointed out? That first one has a longer focal length and a larger aperture. Why do they both have 62mm filter threads when the entrance pupil for them is 22.5mm & 16mm? Why is the Fuji 23mm f4 about 75% even heavier than your 45/2.8? 🤷‍♂️ We would have to ask Fujifilm what design choices they made for such wildly different physical sizes which seem opposite of what you would expect while all share the same image circle, so it can't be an image circle thing.

Manufacturers can make their lenses bigger if they want. But my point with Oly lenses is that most of the time the size and weight of the longer focal length lenses (such as the 100-400 f4) are reasonable for those optical qualities and are mostly independent of the sensor, yet some people seem to insist Oly should be violating the laws of physics to come up with smaller lenses because they are made for m43.


And of course, if you then want to look at equivalent field of view then it gets worse

Right which is why I have not been talking at all about the field of view or "equivalent" lenses but instead have strictly been talking about the physical optical properties of a lens which are characteristics of the lens only and exist when you are holding just the lens in your hand. Field of view only comes into play when you mount a lens in front of a image capture system.
 
Last edited:

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
You'll have to explain yourself a bit further then And I quote "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?"

Correct, that is exactly what I said which was in direct response to your post of (bold emphasis mine)...

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.

I never said anything about a same field of view. I only was talking about the same FOCAL LENGTH and F-STOP, which are both strictly lens physical characteristics and are independent of the field of view captured by a system.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,467
Correct, that is exactly what I said which was in direct response to your post of (bold emphasis mine)...



I never said anything about a same field of view. I only was talking about the same FOCAL LENGTH and F-STOP, which are both strictly lens physical characteristics and are independent of the field of view captured by a system.
This is where you're being disingenuous. You don't use the same focal lengths between formats. You also don't buy into a format/ system, and only buy a single lens, that happens to be smaller and lighter than the other. Well, don't anyway. I build a useful kit. From ultrawide, to short/medium tele.
And you also seem to be conveniently ignoring lenses such as my Laowa 10mm, Lumix 14mm, PL 15, Lumix 20mm, PL 25 & so on.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
You don't use the same focal lengths between formats. You also don't buy into a format/ system, and only buy a single lens

Yes for the same field of view this is correct, but not the point. I am only commenting on those people who for example, when the 300 f4 pro came out or the 100-400 came out, that went on about why are these lenses so big and Oly somehow violated m43 and they should be smaller or that they shouldn't make lenses that big for m43. My question back to them is did they a) want Oly to violate the laws of physics somehow? Or b) is there some arbitrarily picked maximum focal length and/or f-stop they feel Oly should never exceed and if so what are those limits?

To your point, yes, the 300 PRO is a lot smaller than the 600mm you would need on a full frame, but the people who compare the 300 PRO lens to a FF 300 as an example of how they feel Oly didn't do it right because it is as big as the FF one are simply being stupid. It is on par with someone complaining that a 10 pound barbell should be lighter because they are a smaller person. Like the 300 PRO and the 100-400, if the 10 pounder is too big for your liking then don't use it. Not sure what the point is of complaining about their existence.


And you also seem to be conveniently ignoring lenses such as my Laowa 10mm, Lumix 14mm, PL 15, Lumix 20mm, PL 25 & so on.

Not sure what any of those lenses have to do with the conversation so I can't consciously ignore them if they were never part of the discussion. What about them do you want to talk about? Did someone complain that they are too big for the m43 universe? I missed it if they did. I am sure they are all very nice lenses. I only have first hand experience with the Panny 14/2.5 which is a nice enough lens.
 

apete

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
101
Location
Poland
Real Name
Piotr
I am truly happy OM confirmed yesterday they are not going FF. OM FF would have nothing to do with OM 43. If due to M43 death I were pushed to another system, OM FF would be yet another player among the others. Chances of choosing OM FF would be pretty low for me, as after moving away from Pentax and (hypotheticaly) M43, I would (unfortunately) prefer to choose one of the biggest and most stable players. Investing into a new system is just too expensive for me to miss the third time.

Overall ... long live OM and Panasonic M43!
 

ivanbae07

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
56
Location
BKL, ID
Real Name
I.B.
... when the 300 f4 pro came out or the 100-400 came out, that went on about why are these lenses so big and Oly somehow violated m43 and they should be smaller or that they shouldn't make lenses that big for m43. My question back to them is did they a) want Oly to violate the laws of physics somehow? ...

... they feel Oly didn't do it right because it is as big as the FF one are simply being stupid ...
well, whatever

this is what i liked about olympus fanboy. when their chosen one's attacked, their justifications are really comparable to leica wanker's mantras.

joke aside. so, did panasonic violate the law of physic? because somehow their 100-400 is not that humongous than the latest and oh so greatest of all the time on m43 ecosystem, the one and only good enough, olympus 100-400? how and why?

the only chanting i've always heard from olympus was "compact devices, dependable enough, and good result", from the day they launched om system and pen f system decades ago. and yet somehow it became "dependable enough, good result, and only olympus is good enough".


if only their chant is not like that, then i'll never troll pop around with that how and why.
 
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