Thom Hogans m4/3 considerations
Thom Hogan is one of the most famous Nikon reviewers (bythom.com). Normally he is only active inside the nikon dpreview forum, writing very interesting articles. But now he made a small jump into the Olympus dpreview forum. Maybe he is ready for the E-P1? 
.
An interesting excerpt (dpreview):
“I almost always have big pockets available to me. Either a vest or a jacket or sometimes even cargo pockets on my pants/shorts. Likewise the small fanny pack I wear when running/biking. If the camera and lens combos I want fit there, I have a winner. The LX3, G10, Ricoh G200, even DP2 all fall into that category. All have liabilities that I think m4/3 would solve, though.”
“It’ll also give Oly the first real burst of significant growth and market share change they’ve had in a long time.”
“So what would I do if I were Oly?
1. Kill most of the full 4/3 models. Create consumer m4/3 and high-end m4/3.
2. Followup to the E-3 needs a big size reduction (about the same amount as I need to reduce personally ;~).
3. Introduce a mFX (full frame). Small size, high performance full frame. Nikon and Canon have left that hole for anyone to exploit.”
.
I just want to say that Thom is one of the most serious, competent and friendly people I have met inside the dpreview forum. His website is worth visiting!
winfriedw
4 years ago |Full frame? Why people again and again forget that 4/3 and m4/3 are ‘full frame’ in the first place, since the lenses were exactly laid out for the full frame of their 4/3-sensor? Why take the 24x36mm Barnack size as a reference in a digital camera? Only to take the most from existing wide angle lenses from the analogue period.
zxc
4 years ago |this is because the majority of lenses available before the introduction of digital photography is in 135 format, i.e by convention and providing a common ground for focal length comparison among different sensor sizes.
“existing wide angle lenses from the analogue period” This is THE reason why some many people want ‘full frame’, to take the advantage, or so to say, fully utilize their “lenses from the analogue period”.
winfriedw
4 years ago |dear zxc
You didn’t understand my point: e.g. the 4/3 olympus 7-14mm is a really 14-28mm lens without field of view reduction.
Leandro DUTRA
4 years ago |So little knowledge, so much self-aßurance… it is not for Olympus to ſolve the ‘compact camera, huge ſenſor’ conumdrum. Until ſenſors can be made ſhallow, and ſupporting electronics miniaturiſed, all ſuch attempts will be no better ðan the Panaſonic Lumix DMC-G(H)1: nice, but wiþ light fall-off, chromatic aberrations requiring digital correction.