jerryc41 wrote:
I can't see them discontinuing the camera but making an 8K sensor "in the future." I saw both of those articles, too. I think it's just a case of a lag in the news cycle. The 8K sensor article was researched and written, so they posted it.
EDIT: As I've said before, the naming conventions used by camera companies are ridiculous. 4/3 and micro 4/3? Come on!
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/whitepaper.htmlIt does get a bit confusing.
Last week, I ordered a Fotodiox MICRO Four Thirds adapter for Nikon F lenses from KEH. They sent me a Nikon F to FOUR THIRDS adapter, in the original box, clearly marked "Nikon – 4/3". It was in one of their barcoded bags labeled, "OLMD39MA Fotodiox Adapter Nikon F Mount Lens to Micro Four Thirds Body". Of course, it really is a 4/3 adapter, which is useless to me (I have a MICRO 4/3 GH4), so once I figured out it wouldn't fit, I called them. Of course, being KEH, they issued me a credit for it. They don't even want it back, because almost no one uses 4/3 cameras any longer!
I'd be willing to bet someone sold the adapter to KEH as a Nikon to MICRO 4/3 product... and they just didn't pay attention.
So yeah, the naming conventions are unfortunate. Fortunately, since Micro 4/3 has been around for almost a decade, 4/3 is mostly just a blip in photographic history.
(Does anyone need to mount old Nikon F lenses on an original 4/3 format camera? PM me. Pay shipping and you can have this pristine condition adapter. They're normally about $20 new.)
This is the final chapter of Olympus' migration away from a product line that "could have," but failed to compete with Nikon and Canon. Original E-1 was a work of art, and the successive E-5 had it's strengths. I'm sure digital age R&D costs are astronomical in comparison to the days of film-only cameras. Although I've bemoaned Oly's departure from pro-style equipment, I'm glad to see they are continuing to develop cutting-edge products with the m4/3's. As I've learned in other areas of life, corporations will rarely put front-money in baskets with little future, so they must foresee a willing public for the m4/3's. 8-K video from a 4/3's sensor--wow!
And I agree with OP concerning the naming conventions--there is something ironic about companies that sell creative products failing to be creative in naming their products.
Acufine3200 wrote:
This is the final chapter of Olympus' migration away from a product line that "could have," but failed to compete with Nikon and Canon. Original E-1 was a work of art, and the successive E-5 had it's strengths. I'm sure digital age R&D costs are astronomical in comparison to the days of film-only cameras. Although I've bemoaned Oly's departure from pro-style equipment, I'm glad to see they are continuing to develop cutting-edge products with the m4/3's. As I've learned in other areas of life, corporations will rarely put front-money in baskets with little future, so they must foresee a willing public for the m4/3's. 8-K video from a 4/3's sensor--wow!
And I agree with OP concerning the naming conventions--there is something ironic about companies that sell creative products failing to be creative in naming their products.
This is the final chapter of Olympus' migration aw... (
show quote)
Even Apple has naming confusion... They have sold MANY revisions of products that have the same name.
I think anyone who has used the OMD-EM1 Mark II would say it is every ounce a professional tool. Both it and the Lumix GH5 that Panasonic ships later this month are professional tools in every respect. Each has a very different market niche.
Independent filmmakers, corporate videographers, broadcasters, and ad agencies are drooling over the new GH5's video capability. Here's a sample of what it can do in 4K 60P:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoYbqSxPWrACommercial and portrait pros also have been using the GH2, GH3, and GH4 for over five years to do hybrid portraiture — a web-based product that contains still photos within a short video, rich in graphics, music, and sound.
Both Oly and Panny are making incredible glass. At least a fourth of the available lenses are pro quality.
Micro 4/3 gets kicked by the full frame crowd a lot, but most of the punters have NEVER picked up one, let alone tried it. I used to use large format film, medium format film, 35mm film, APS-C and "full frame" dSLRs... and I switched. M4/3 does what I need to do.
johneccles wrote:
Olympus have discontinued their M4/3 lenses, they haven't made M4/3 cameras for some years.
They continue to produce "Micro Four Thirds" cameras and lenses, in your post the the second page explains the difference.
No... they have discontinued and given up on 4/3.
Olympus (and others) continues to develop, produce and offer M4/3 (The "M"4/3 in M4/3 indicates "MICRO").
And why such confusing abbreviations?
As I learned them:
M = mega, as in MB for megabytes
m = milli, as in ml for milliliters or millimeters
and u = micro, as in um for micrometers such as wavelengths of light
Yes? No? Maybe?
μ43 is technically correct, but few know what "μ" means. It's also a pain the ass to figure out what key command that is...much easier to use m for micro. If you shoot that format, it's generally understood.
Cdouthitt wrote:
μ43 is technically correct, but few know what "μ" means. It's also a pain the ass to figure out what key command that is...much easier to use m for micro. If you shoot that format, it's generally understood.
Yeah, what IS the key command for Greek letter "mu?"
Thanks
twowindsbear wrote:
Yeah, what IS the key command for Greek letter "mu?"
Thanks
dunno...I had to use a glyph table in Adobe Illustrator, then copy and paste it from there...told you it was a PITA...
twowindsbear wrote:
And why such confusing abbreviations?
As I learned them:
M = mega, as in MB for megabytes
m = milli, as in ml for milliliters or millimeters
and u = micro, as in um for micrometers such as wavelengths of light
Yes? No? Maybe?
Most smartphones and PCs have no easy way to type a Greek letter 'mu'. Macs do, but some browsers pervert Greek characters when 'mu' is not part of the font in use. Non-STEM people and non-classics majors won't get u4/3. So... m43, M4/3, or Micro 4/3.
There is a web site using 'mu'43, but their logo is a bitmap graphic, not a font.
Clint was ambitious! It IS a royal PITA to find that.
from wiki
Symbol encoding in character sets[edit]
The official symbol for the SI prefix micro- is a Greek lowercase mu (μ).[4] For reasons stemming from its design, there are two different characters in Unicode, which appear slightly different in some fonts, although most fonts use the same glyph. The micro sign (µ) is encoded in the "Latin-1 Supplement" range identical to ISO/IEC 8859-1 (since 1987), at U+00B5 (Alt+0181),[5] residing at this codepoint also in DEC MCS (since 1983) and ECMA-94 (since 1985). The Greek letter (μ) is encoded in the Greek range at U+03BC (Alt+956). According to The Unicode Consortium, the Greek letter character is preferred,[6] but implementations must recognize the micro sign as well.
In circumstances, in which only the Latin alphabet is available, ISO 2955 (1974,[7] 1983[8]), DIN 66030 (Vornorm 1973;[9] 1980,[10][11] 2002[12]) and BS 6430 (1983) allow the prefix μ to be substituted by the letter u (or even U, if lowercase letters are not available), as, for example, in um for μm, or uF for μF. Similar, capacitor values according to the letter and digit code defined in IEC 60062 (IEC 62) (since 1952), EN 60062, DIN 40825 (1973), BS 1852 (1974), IS 8186 (1976) etc. can be written as 4u7 (or 4U7) instead of 4µ7 if the Greek letter µ is not available.
I think I'll continue to use m43 and M4/3 and Micro 4/3 and occasionally, Micro 4/3. It's easier than dealing with that other BS.
On the Mac, µ is invoked with Option + m. But it falls apart in some browsers on other platforms. I think you need Western (ISO Latin 1) encoding for it to work.
That's pretty cool, Old Tigger, thanks! µ4/3 it is!
I'm going to bookmark the page, always wondered how you do some of those characters.
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
markie1425 wrote:
Hi,
These two back-to-back headlines posted on DPR seem to be contradictory.
Would someone please explain? I thought that Olympus continues to be a four-thirds system champion.
I'm probably missing some subtlety.
Thank you.
There were 4/3rds lenses and micro 4/3rds lenses. Now there will be only micro 4/3rds lenses. The 4/3rds lenses were for the initial 4/3rds cameras that had a mirror. Now Olympus and Panasonic are mirrorless so they don't need to produce the mirror designs any more. Some of them were exceptionally good.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.