Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Four Thirds System

Subject: Re: [OM] Four Thirds System
From: Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:58:28 -0700
How close is "4/3" sensor size to 16mm movie frame size. Image circle size
has very little influence on angle-of-view, this can be designed to be
anything starting with a 'clean sheet of paper' as Olympus is. It may say
8mm f2.0 on the lens front, but the angle-of-view will be equivalent to a
16mm rectilinear wide angle on a 35mm camera... and the images equal.

Another thing is that in electronics its not necessarily more difficult to
make a 14MP image sensor that is 4/3 size than it is one that is 24mm x
36mm... in fact, it may be both easier and cheaper. Yields per wafer go up
as the die size is made smaller, since process defects tend to wipe out the
die and may span multiple dies. Wafer processing cost is the same whether 20
or 100 good image sensors are produced... but if yield is better if they're
small ones, and they're cheaper too, there is a multiplier of economic
benefit. The 24mm x 36mm image sensor is really required only to support
legacy lens lines.

Smaller electronic features on the image sensor die are not a problem, Intel
uses an 18-micron process for the Pentium 4 and its 40-million+ transistors,
and is getting ready to ramp a 13-micron process... enabling 200-million+
transistor chips. Surely you could make a 14MP+ image sensor using some kind
of similar process, and have the overall size still be 4/3".

The Olydak prototype is described as an early one... I'm reminded of the
mules that car makers use to test new engines and chassis... they look like
a 1999 Buick but underneath its the 2004 chassis. Does anyone know of an
official introduction or information release date?
-- 

Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...


on 9/24/02 8:18 AM, Tom Scales at tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> In my case, full frame, or close to it, is important because I prefer
> wide-angle lenses -- 21, 18, 16.
> 
> No way could I ever afford the glass to do 16 well on a 4/3" sensor.
> 
> Tom
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 10:28:08AM -0400, Tom Scales wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, everyone else is passing them by.  4/3" when both Kodak
> (!)
>>> and Canon have introduced full-frame?
>> 
>> I'm not so sure that full-frame 35 is necessarily that important. What's
> the
>> goal here? I would contend that it's resolution, not absolute image sensor
>> size, once you've made the decision to abandon your existing lens mount.
> So
>> what if the normal lens is a 24 isntead of a 50?
> <snip>


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz