Olympus and Panasonic do often explain the advantages of a Four Thirds sized sensor over the classic APS-C format. But it’s nice to hear that Canon is on the same wavelength! As you know Canon is using a Four Thirds ratio sensor (just a tiny bit bigger than “our” m43 sensors) for their just launched Canon G1X (CLick here to see tha cams pecs). David Parry, from Canon UK explained at Techradar (Click here) why they didn’t opt for the APS-C sensor: “We managed to create a four times zoom in a very compact body, and really it has the biggest sensor that we could use and also get decent coverage from the lens. If you made the sensor any bigger, the lens would have to be a lot bigger and it would be much more difficult and expensive to produce.”
Sounds almost like Canon wants to join the Micro Four Thirds system 🙂 Hey it’s a joke and not a rumor! ….at least for now 🙂
83 Responses
4:3 is the aspect ratio, not the size
@Rob Yea, but we all know what it “means”, and actually in this context of a standardised format it has a standardised size.
It would be great if Canon were to decide to go with the momentum of m43 and join the standard. Not going to hold my breath tho!
yes, but in aps-c size there are Sigma 1,7x, Canon 1,6x and Nikon/other 1,5x. So in 4/3 size there are 4/3 2x, m4/3 2x and Canon 1,9x…right?
Four Thirds with capitalized F and T is the brand name of the standard – so it IS a size. So no need to correct Admin.
Yes, Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds are both standard sensor formats. The GX1 is neither, nor does the linked article mention either… or even the aspect ratio for that matter, which is 4:3. Not trying to correct the admin, but there is nothing in the article that mentions Four Thirds or m/43
That’s why he wrote ‘it’s a joke’…
If a Canon rep talks about advantages of a specific sensor size, you can transfer these conclusions to a sensor that has roughly the same size. Since it’s transferred here to a competitor’s product, it isn’t meant to be taken too seriously. That’s usually called “irony”.
The standard doesn’t dictate an aspect ratio if I remember correctly, it only says the image circle from the lens has to be a certain sizes. (and the mount…etc) I believe it would be perfectly possible to create a 3:2 or 16:9 or even square sensor and still be in the 4/3s or m4/3s standard. I
the af100 is a perfect example of that, its a 16X9 sensor in m4/3 spec.
Yes the article plays with the ambivalence of that.
hahaha join in the bandwagon lol
By that same token wouldn’t a 1:1 aspect ratio be even better yet? You could build even smaller lenses at that point.
No, the best one is a circular sensor 😉
Fair enough, then you could crop out whatever aspect ratio you wanted while maintaining a slightly higher resolution.
That’s more or less the idea behind multi-aspect sensors like the one found in the Panasonic GH2
Yep.
The GH2 has essentially this.
“That’s more or less the idea behind multi-aspect sensors like the one found in the Panasonic GH2”
The idea is not completely realized with rectangular sensor, to fully realize it one needs a true round sensor.
“No, the best one is a circular sensor ”
Join the discussion:
http://www.43rumors.com/groups/main/forum/topic/round-sensors-on-micro-43/
make that a dish shaped sensor
@SZRimaging: 1:1 sensors would use even more of the image circle than 4:3. The problem is that most people prefer a rectangular image to a square one – in general, for most images (I know there are lots of exceptions).
Anyway, using a square sensor would mean cropping most of the images and loose the advantage. So, given that the end result will be a rectangular image then it’s cheaper and more efficient to start out with something like 4:3 or 3:2.
Personally I think 4:3 is a good compromise, but you could also argue for 3:2 as ideal given that many people will use their TV sets for image display. 16:9 is too wide IMO and any sensor output today can be cropped to 16:9 anyway without loss in quality due to the huge difference in pixel count between still images and HDTVs.
This was slightly in jest 😉
I fully understand the aspect ratios. 4:3 and 16:9 seem like the only logical aspects to me. Maybe whatever anamorphic is also…
“Sounds almost like Canon wants to join the Micro Four Thirds”
I wouldn’t mind. Maybe new Oly sensor is a Canon 😉 ?
it might be hehehe…. we hope canon will join m43 haha
Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt…
That would be worth photographing…
the last time I saw that happened was in a alley way with a tall guy asking for an apology from a gang who beat up a homeless guy..so… be careful what you wish for
Hey I definitely wouldn’t mind, especially if Canon would make a electronically driven EOS to micro 4/3 adapter. Of course, this is all wishful thinking.
for what it’s worth, the venerable Olympus PEN (original half-frame) had a frame size of approx. APS-C. But look at those lenses! They ar tiny.
Modern lenses are much better than those from old Pens, not to mention AF which old Pens lacked.
Digital sensors are much more demanding on lenses than film used to be, hence why modern lenses are quite bigger than those used on film (plus AF).
Do you say that from experience?
My 40mm F1.4 lens from my PenFt on my Pen digital is exceptional, not bettered by any m4/3 lens. Of course it is MF.
Don
And have no AF motors, or other electonics…..
I know what you’re thinking, but it doesn’t work that way on digital sensor since they need the angle of incidence to be as perpendicular as possible.
By the way, the ultimate solution here would be a *hemi-spherical* sensor.
This would provide for very short lens-to-sensor distances and the ability to easily make small, high-quality, large aperture lenses. Plus, with a hemi-spherical lens, you could easily cram a full-frame sensor area within the confines of even the smallest m4/3rds body.
Mark my works, this technology is going to be the next big iteration of digital image sensors. It will probably get implemented in mobile phones first and on up from there.
So… you are talking about a digital eye, not a digital camera. 😉
Naaah, “hemi-spherical” is not ultimate. At least, for interchangeable lens camera. You would want curvature for WA lenses, but it won’t be good for longer focal lengths.
The only value of Canon joining the m43 fold would have been … well, at least we would have guaranteed that m43 would stay with us for much much longer. Panasonic as a CE company is prone to sudden changes. Olympus is historically prone to sudden changes. But Canon, if nothing else, they stick with the product lines, and even if ripping their customers off, they still keep maintaining the mount’s ecosystem.
Also, with the volumes and the strengths of Canon’s commitment, we would have a chance of seeing some pretty exotic lenses for the m43 – e.g. tilt/shift or extreme telephoto primes – because releasing them pays off only in the long term.
rrr_hhh asked the question about shift lenses and the answer from the Olympus guy to me sounded more like “we haven’t fully committed to the m43 yet and thus we do not produce anything which makes sense only in the long term.” Of course, I’m stretching the blank, marketing-style “we are thinking about it” answer, but still, this is the only answer we got. That’s why for true prosperity of m43 we need companies like Canon on board.
Sticking to their product line? Like they did when they changed from FL mount to EOS?
I would like to correct you on the point of Canon maintaining the mount eco system.
When EOS came the older FD lenses wernt compatible with the new EF mount!
According to Canon, 43 crop is better suited than APS-C for fixed lens cameras with zoom. Leaving things to that, I think everyone agrees.
Now, your title suggest a theoretical leap and wonders a little bit on the provocative side :p
This ratio observation should be pasted in the press tent at fashion week, just underneath the canon sign 🙂
mFT sensors may have may be the “sweet spot” in the relation sensor size vs lens size. At least if you look at what Sony does…..
Looking at Fuji X lenses and the small Pentax lenses, the story is different:
It is possible (for some) to develop small HQ lenses also for “APS-C” sensor sizes.
Why in the world would Canon join mFT: They want to sell their own lenses to their cameras. CaNikon makes a big money on their lenses.
The Fuji X-pro primes are not very small. Not as large as most NEX lenses, but not as nimble as the m4/3 equivalents.
Take the PanaLeica 25/1.4 and Fujinon X 35/1.4: Very similar in size! Take the Oly 60mm macro and the Fuji 60mm macro: Oly is larger. Look at the Pentax lenses, look at Zeiss AF lenses for Contax G1/2 film cameras………..
I guess this canon guy was talking about zooms, wasn’t he?
“mFT sensors may have may be the “sweet spot” in the relation sensor size vs lens size. At least if you look at what Sony does”
Have a look at the Pentax 40mm f/2.8 XS pancake. There is no m4/3 lens that small, not one.
Lens size depends on many things, not just sensor size.
Except that the Pentax lens is only that small (“thin”, it is still wider than the 14/2.5) because they have a reverse-Sony syndrome: large flange distance to image circle diameter. Sony’s shallow mount has baffled lenses to keep them telecentric. With Pentax’s 45.5mm flange distance and 1.5x crop sensor, there are different compromises (retrofocal designs requiring larger optics, common to all the APS-C DSLR offerings). Of the three, m43 has a historically SLR balanced sensor/flange ratio, creating the smallest total depth (lens filter to camera back). They probably didn’t have to look far for their inspiration, the flange/imager ratio is a scaled down 2x crop of Canon’s EF system – minus the swinging mirror. Sony went for something closer to a scale of the M-mount… which is odd considering the problems well known with digital rangefinder cameras.
I think this lens is a great upgrade over the 18-55mm kit lens. It offres a wider range, better build quality, USM and great overall picture quality (sharpness). The downsides are that it has some barrel distortion, chromatic aberrations and vignetting. It is also not a large aperture lens, but I knew what I was getting into. If you need/want large aperture you’d be looking at the 17-55mm. Also for this price Canon could have at least thrown in the lens hood.
One thing that always irks me is that the 4/3 and micro 4/3 standards are the only ones which really publish their imaging-area size, and not the size of the whole sensor chip, including the non-imaging area. At those sizes, even a millimetre here, and half a millimetre there will make a significant difference if you’re counting area, and for those who care about it, makes 4/3 look worse than it really is.
Canon will NOT join the m4/3 mount in a million years, even if they end up using a similarly sized sensor in their upcoming EVIL system (which is quite probable if you ask me). Canon is too proud for that. It would try to beat Panasonic and Olympus in their own game.
Canon could join but still stay apart. Sensor is similar enough to let m43 / FT lenses work. If Canon mount allows an intelligent adapter they can access the available lens lineup. Native lenses will focus faster and allow some other features like power zoom, OIS, etc. not available with non Canon lenses.
Not sure if MFT accepts such a membership.
You are certainly right theoretically. However, Canon is likely to choose a radically different plunge distance only to prevent the use of m4/3 glass on their bodies. Besides, Canon has been very good at giving customers what they want and most people think that slimmer is sexier, so there you go.
The 43 issue has to do with the image circle required for the lens. For a given sensor area, the 32 aspect ratio requires a much larger lens to cover the “wings” while leaving empty space top and bottom. The most efficient sensor aspect ratio for a lens is square. 43 is closer to square than 32. The implication is that 32 camera systems force users to carry around a lot of excess lens size and weight relative to sensor area. The real question: why are Nikon and Canon so committed to the 32 sensor aspect ratio other than as a legacy holdover from the 35mm film era?
“why are Nikon and Canon so committed to the 32 sensor aspect ratio other than as a legacy holdover from the 35mm film era?”
Because it’s “professional”. I have a friend who uses a GF1 and keeps cropping his images to 3:2 for this reason.
Haha, ROTFLMFAO. Please stop, the idiocy is getting to me.
Using 3:2 because it’ s professional, can it get more stupid than that?
Of course it’s possible to get more stupid, haven’t you seen the Darwin awards?
Yep, just like computer monitors being cutted to 16:9 low vertical res screens nowadays instead of well balanced 16:10.
I prefer my 4:3 monitor!
16:10 equivalent resolution has at least same vertical resolution.
But, yeah, 4:3 would be better considering it’s lot harder to run out of vertical space between desk and roof than horizontal desk space. And especially laptops would benefit greatly from 4:3 giving more resolution in more important vertical direction without laptop bloating to size of barge with still shitty vertical resolution.
Let’s hope lot simpler manufacturing of OLED screens compared to compromized overcomplexity called LCD would give more choises in display aspect ratios.
And here I am, cropping my Leica-shot negatives to 5:4 and 4:3, because they often look better that way 🙂
3:2 was only “professional” prior the 2000’s in the sports world. Now the advent of digital SLRs pushed the adoption of new frame sizes… those 8×10 portrait prints weren’t some arbitrary AR decision 😉 135 format had always been the “compact digital” of the film world… hardly professional where studio and field work is concerned!
oh….ever since I saw that sensor in the GX1 I believed that Canon would release a mirrorless camera with that size sensor. We, here, all know what a great size that it is. With technology flying along the way that it is, I know that in the (near) future we will be seeing current Full-Frame quality from a sensor the size of MFT. (all things being relative here)…it is just a matter of time…so it would make sense for Canon to jump in with the prefect sensor size to make cameras and lenses smaller, but not too small. Then build a system on that.
Do I think Canon will join MFT. No. They will do their own thing. That I would bet on.
The Four Thirds moniker does not come from the aspect ration, but from the 4/3” diameter of the image circle, according to http://web.archive.org/web/20110714235957/http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/dslr_7045.htm.
I’m ready to wager a beer that canon SLV camera will be with that G1X sensor size… I think Canon are testing the waters for such a system with the G1X…
Canon justifies not making an APS-C sensor itt.
He doesn’t say it is BETTER, it is the best compromise size of sensor Vs size of lenses.
It is like saying a VW Golf is the best compromise if the BMW will not fit in your garage.
yes now we only have to hope that Canon can make a sensor for Olympus so that we can get a non Panasonic sensor for a change
Harold
Digital Canonet QL-17 please…
Manual everything!
QL for memory cards, that would be interesting!
i dream they could say the same about the idea of a common lense mount between various manufacturers… so they should just join the MFT group! that would be the best thing that could happe, both for them, for MFT standard, and for consumers (the most important).
Eh???????????????? 3:2 is the ratio used for obtain the “golden ratio” that we see in nature, arquitecture among other things…is considered the “perfect ratio”….type HCB golden ratio in google….
No. The 3:2 aspect ratio is the result of doubling the size of a cine frame. Its purely an accident. Oh, and phi is closer to 1.62 than 1.5.
Yesterday, you have made some people believe that you’re a fanboy of Oly with the way you emphasizing the word better in the title. Today it happened again. lol.
What makes you think that the statement quoted above means 4/3 is better than aps-c? He’s just trying to advertise canon’s new camera and new sensor size which what they can come up with in order to cram the zoom lens and to be able to keep the body compact.
“it has the biggest sensor that we COULD use..”. Here, if you can understand his English very well, showing the limitation that Canon has in order to use sensor that can cover the lens decently.
“If you made the sensor any bigger, the lens would have to be a lot bigger and it would be much more DIFFICULT and expensive to produce.” Again, showing you the limitation. That’s how I analyze it.
Just like Tulio said, it’s like saying “I bought VW Golf, because that’s the only one that can fit my garage. ANy bigger than that would be more expensive and difficult to to fit into my garage..” and all of the VW Golf fanboys rejoice, and say:”VW Golf is better than BMW! ” 🙂
This is not surprising. In the old film days many of the pundits at the time who used to write in the photography magazines (pre-internet) used to argue that the 3:2 ratio of 35mm film was a very wasteful format because you needed a much bigger image circle to cover it, than a squarer format like 4:3. Of course at the time most of the standard photographic paper wasn’t in 3:2, think 10 x 8, 16 x 12, 16 x 20. So nearly all 35mm film images were cropped for printing.
Things have changed a bit with computer monitors going wide. I’ve had both an APS-C Canon system and a 4/3 DSLR system for quite a few years. I get used to composing in whichever format I am using at the time. So people have probably got used to the wider format now. Although as most digicams are 4:3 ratio, the public must be used to composing in 4:3.
Both Sony and to some extent Samsung mirrorless lenses show quite a bit of drop off to the edges. Personally I also think that Panasonic only initially got involved in 4/3 because they were already developing the m4/3 concept, and saw 4/3 as the ideal size. In fact I saw an interview in which a senior Panasonic official said they were working on m4/3 from their very first involvement in 4/3. In other words I think Panasonic had made a long term decision that both the size and ratio of the 4/3 sensor was the best long term choice for a mirrorless camera system.
I think the 4/3 sensor is a sweet spot compromise when it come to DOF control, sensor performance and being able to design smaller lenses with good corner performance. Bigger and smaller sensors do in certain contexts have an advantage over a 4/3 sensor. However, they all have bigger disadvantages in some contexts than 4/3 sensors.
Afer m4/3 was announced a Canon official was asked about whether they would join m4/3. What was surprising is that they didn’t rule it out, and give the normal we have a proud tradition, we set our own standards usual response.
Fanboy much?
A Canon PR guy talking about how great his product is managed to be taken out of context and used to promote a competitor’s product. Didn’t Canon also say they have no plan to drop APS-H when 1D4 was introduced because it is the perfect size and ratio and zoom… until 1D X showed up?
Someone is on the Olympus marketing team or least wishes to be.
Laugh much? It’s meant tongue-in-cheek.
Thanks for proving that Canon fanboys have no sense of humour whatsoever.
Seems to me the lens mounts just as important as the sensor size, otherwise adaptors come into the picture.
Ratio shmatio.
Everyone getting hung up on the aspect ratio == the sensor should check the image showing the relative sizes of the various sensors. The G1X sensor is BIGGER than the 4/3 sensor. It just has the same aspect ratio. But it is NOT a “standard 4/3 sized” sensor, whichever way you cut it.
Whilst I’m channelling my inner pedant, I am fairly sure that the sensor in a m4/3 body is a 4/3 sensor. It is the MOUNT which distinguishes m4/3 from 4/3, NOT the sensor.
It is incorrect imho to identify a 4/3 sensor as a m4/3 sensor. 4/3 is the standard. m4/3 is the variant embodied in the mirrorless mount specification (interesting: the “m” in m43 could just as well == “mirrorless”).
Again, see my comment above with respect to non-imaging area. They physical size of a FT/micro FT sensor is 18mm x 13.5mm, with an imaging area of 17.3mm x 13mm. The Canon’s sensor size is 18.7mm x 14mm. That’s pretty damned close. I’m quite sure they’re quoting the actual sensor physical size, and not just the imaging area.
SR1 rating on the joke … 😉
I Can see Canon joining just so that they can cut through some patents and R&D and buy themselves the tech they need.
I don’t see them contributing to the system as in actually producing an interesting body or a canon lens. They are to proud of that.
Eh – 4 years later and everyone migrate to full frame 35mm sensor.