A half year ago a source sent us a rumor about a Olympus prototype camera that sues a semi-transparent mirror (What Sony calls Translucent). Good to know that the rumor was correct because today we found the patent that explains how it works! Download the pdf at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7889268.pdf. The many difference between the Sony solution and the Olympus patent is that you can flip up the mirror when you want to avoid the light loss you have using the semi transparent mirror.
This is the original description copied from the patent:
“The digital camera of the present invention has a still image shooting mode and a moving image shooting mode, and performs different focusing operations between the still image shooting mode and the moving image shooting mode.
For example, the range of focusing tolerance and the driving speed of a focusing optical system can vary between the still image shooting mode and the moving image shooting mode such as to set the range of focusing tolerance wider or the driving speed of the focusing optical system slower in the moving image shooting mode.
An exemplary structure of the present invention can be expressed as follows. A digital camera having a still image shooting mode and a moving image shooting mode comprises: a mirror member arranged in an optical path of a photographing lens to reflect part of a subject light beam passing through the photographing lens and transmit the remaining part of the subject light beam; an imaging part for receiving the subject light beam transmitted through the mirror member to output a subject image signal; a distance measurement part for receiving the subject light beam reflected by the mirror member to detect a defocus amount of the photographing lens; and a focusing part for performing a focusing operation to drive the focusing optical system in the photographing lens to an in-focus position based on the defocus amount detected by the distance measurement part, wherein in the still image shooting mode, the focusing part performs a first focusing operation prior to still image shooting, and in the moving image shooting mode, the focusing part performs a second focusing operation different in mode from the first focusing operation during moving image recording.
According to the present invention, there can be provided an easy-to-use digital camera capable of acquiring both still and moving images.”
And that was the description of the prototype the source has seen:
But there is also a second FourThirds prototype that he is testing. The name is E-P330 (again a FAKE name). It is be very similar to the current E-330
UPDATED: I corrected the typos. Sorry I was in real hurry today and as usual writing article with the iPhone isn’t really helping. + I am sick today 🙁
48 Responses
Is this the brigde between 4/3 and m4/3? Can it use 4/3 lenses as well m4/3 lenses?
No. It has a mirror, so 4/3 only.
The question however is, if the idea ever gets materialized (apart from a prototype).
Yes, that is to be the question to ask.
I’m taking bets that it doesn’t.
Maybe a not swinging mirror could fit – there are still 20mm space between lense and sensor in mFT…
interesting question!
@ admin – Those seem to be two different cameras:
One with a movable mirror (some sort of reflex, most probably with 43rds mounts) and one with an electronically controllable mirror (liquid crystal) that does not have to be physically moved.
Can you clarify?
Bring it on! We want an MMF-3 with integrated, controllable liquid crystal mirror and PDAF sensor 😉
Right. There’s no need for a camera, just make an adapter.
And if the adapter is too thick ( thus not possible to make ), than make a modular camera that can work with either a 4/3 module with semi transparent mirror or with m4/3 module. Great news, you’re on the right track Olympus!
I am wondering why Sony has not come up with such a thing, they have the technology. It was so stupid of them to make both NEX and SLT lines when they could just make translucent adapter for NEX. Oh well, maybe NEXt time :).
I guess there are some problems developing such an adapter, such as:
1. Electronic communications between adapter and camera. Does the mFT interface/protocol allow for such an extension? Is it fast enough? AF sensor data is normally not communicated from the lens/adapter to the camera.
2. Does the mirror fit inside the adapter? (already mentioned by Miroslav: if it doesn’t, build a modular camera)
3. Optical degradation due to liquid crystal mirror (I )
4. Is switching the liquid crystal between 50% and 100% fast enough? If not, this could lead to long shutter lags or poor AF-C performance
5. Price
But such a thing would drastically improve Olympus’ position, especially with respect to existing 4/3 users. It would suddenly also make a lot of sense to invest in 4/3 glass, because something like a 14-35/2.0 or 35-100/2.0 will always be big, mirror or not. I am hesitating to get a 14-35/2.0. If such an adapter existed, I would’ve already bought it.
It would be interesting to compare the Olympus patent with the Nikon “half-mirror” one: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/02/15/nikon-patents-update-half-mirror-flash-with-built-in-bounce-system.aspx
If you actually read the patents, Olympus filed in 2007, Nikon in 2009. Filing date is more important than issue date regarding patents.
One must never believe any patent is valid just because it exists! Any patent can be voided if prior art can be demonstrated.
Only after the lawyers finish fighting over prior art does the dust settle 😉
a Olympus prototype camera that “sues” a semi-transparent mirror….. I guess it should be “uses”? There are a few other typo errors too.
FOCUS III, track 6: ‘Ansers? Questions! Questions? Answers!
This is great! This could mean that the death of reg. fourthird is far from true. I would love an E-630 with a translucent mirror!
Ah! A typo. Should read: ‘Answers? Questions! Questions? Answers!’
Considering how many patents we’ve seen from Olympus in the last 3 years that haven’t materialized into ANY product, I’m finding it difficult to get excited. I’m pretty certain Olympus’ PRO micro four thirds will just be some waterproofed E-P2.
They have all of the elements for something truly extraordinary, though. I just don’t think they’ll spend the money to develop the thing that will save them. They’re timid. Somehow, they forgot the vision of previous eras and have decided to play it safe. Maybe their executives are a little on the old side. Old men tend to lose the ability to take big risks.
+1… sad but I agree
Also, I’m calling BS on the “uses the same sensor as GH1”.. When you test a camera, they don’t give you a spec sheet. They don’t tell you what sensor it has. They give you a minimal manual, usually, but it tells you only the very basic information about the menu interfaces.
So, even if you have a great source, I’m pretty sure he’s speculating about what he’s got in his hands. Also, he’s a lousy tester if he’s sharing this information with you, and he probably won’t be for long, since they don’t give the same prototype to everyone. If he’s accurate, Olympus is going to know that he’s a chatty Cathy.
+1
The GH1 sensor was used in no other camera than the G1 (GF2, G2 use the older sensor used in G1 and GF1). The multi-aspect sensors (GH1/2) are what differentiates the GHx from the all other m43rds models, and are not available to Olympus.
Other than that, this sensor outputs 1080p, there is no reason to limit its output to 720p.
Stillborn idea. Better try to develop fast CDAF focus systems and ultra high resolution EVFs.
I agree. However, the fact they are even pursuing this with their limited resources means they have hit the wall with CDAF. At least, that what I think it could mean.
It simply means they have a great lens line up that is incompatible with CDAF, and that they are trying to fuse 43rds and micro 43rds into one system – as stated in previous interviews.
+1 Too late to pursue new CDAF research now. As much as I love my Olympus, I know AF is not something it can catch up quickly. Easiest way is to license AF technology, not reinventing the wheel.
I don’t think resolution of EVFs is ever a problem (1.4 million dots in such a small screen is miles ahead of 920k dots on a large 3″ LCD). It’s the low light performance. Once it’s in low light condition, that “HDTV” is suddenly not usable because it’s so fuzzy with noise. Just try one and you know what I mean.
Or use/licence Fuji’s on-sensor PDAF technology.
So it seems they may be designing an hybrid 4/3-m4/3 camera with full support for lenses of both systems… If they really plan to release that, I wouldn’t understand why they didn’t say it before. A lot of people definitely withdrew from Olympus 4/3 system thinking it wouldn’t have any future.
Very interesting the note about the GH1 sensor inside an Olympus body if true at all. May it be the “new” design we were waiting for the G3? If so, I guess it would be non multi-aspect and with video limitations made on purpose.
Note that this patent was originally submitted in Japan in 2006 – 5 years ago. Of course, it may still be very much in development, but it’s just as likely that they have moved on [and killed 4/3 altogether, most probably].
tranlsucent = translucent ???
Sorry for the typos. I am currently outside my country, travelling around and sick. It’s pity to have to work like that. Hope to be fine tomorrow…
Get well soon. 🙂
I just hope it has OVF. EVF aren’t good in low light and emits radiation.
Then hopefully you’re living your whole life with eyes closed because at day time there’s that nasty electromagnetic radiation called visible light emitted by/reflected from everything you look (including your PC monitor) and when you’re in dark there’s still thermal infrared radiation.
I swear even i couldn’t guess this. This Oly really cracks me up.
It seems like they are trying to find new markets where they can suck more if that is possible.
Does that means it uses live view… I hope it doesn’t heat up the sensor and drain the battery.
LiveView requires no mirror (m4/3). Battery drain is due to large LCD monitor. Smaller monitor like a typical EVF doesn’t drain quite as much (but it does use battery power, unlike OVF, which is just light traveling through). If it’s liquid crystal, then turn on LED on and off requires battery, obviously. Anything that uses power will always emit heat as a byproduct (until one day we achieve 100% power efficiency, that is), but I don’t think that should be a major concern as they should plan it out during R&D stage. Any overheat concern is due to incomplete bug testing. I have a feeling overheat problem that plagues Canon and Sony’s latest offerings is due to last minute change of specs, like “let’s change the video resolution to 1080p instead of 720p as designed.”
A difficulty for all manufacturers with a present DSLR line of product is to find a future for their mount and lens series developed for the SLR flange-back requirements that doesn’t conflict with anything else they are doing. Olympus and Sony both have this problem and the translucent mirror arrangement for viewfinding gives them an out. However, this may be more successful at the higher end of the market than at the consumer end. “Pros” don’t mind carrying big gear – the consumer prefers something more svelte, but the consumer increasingly wants good IQ. So MFT, NEX, NX and all such future developments will continue to enjoy a growing market.
Thanks for posting despite being sick. Hope you get well soon.
+1
Olympus needs to stop writing patents and needs to focus (pun intended) on bringing out new cameras. Patents do not produce the cash that the imaging division needs. PRODUCTS do! How many iterations of the same camera are they going to produce (E-P1, E-P2, E-PL1, E-PL2, E-5, etc.) before we get something really new?
Most people do not understand what patents really are. They are only a license to sue other people in court if they copy what you are doing. First, somebody would actually have to copy what you are doing, then you need to hire an army of lawyers, then you need to spend years in court, and finally, if it all goes well, you get some cash in a settlement. Companies do not get rich from patents.
The technical difficulties of producing a system camera with a modular design to make use of both the 4/3 and micro4/3 lenses with different bodies is not that large. Olympus could have released that product by now if they really wanted to. I think they bit off more than they could chew with the development. They have technical problems related to all of these gizmos they are patenting.
Keep it simple! Make a 4/3 modular body with a traditional SLR mirror and prism. Make a micro 4/3 body with no mirror and an EVF. Have an interchangeable back that hold the sensor module and the image processing. Communications between the modules can be handled with a digital bus like on a computer. All of these modules could be upgraded independently. Done! Get on with it! Stop messing around with these exotic optical systems that just cause more problems than they solve.
Patents are here to protect intellectual properties. They are primarily used to protect losses due to people stealing other people’s inventions. They “can” produce cash if they license the technology to other people. It is also used as strategic advantage. If Panasonic did not patent their GH1/2 sensor, then Olympus could simply open up the sensor they bought from Panny and made their own GH1/2 sensor if they have the production technology. Do not over-simplify the issue.
Though I do agree with you that keep things simple is the way to go. More moving parts equal more potential failing parts. But completely ignore the future possibility is not very smart, especially if the company wants to continue to operate. Sony’s translucent mirror is a good invention, you have to admit it. It loses light, so its sensor loses advantageous when you compare it to 4/3, but there is no mirror to flip up, so it’s less prone to failure. When on a tripod, no need to use mirror lock up (or anti-shake, as Olympus likes to call it).
“Most people do not understand what patents really are. They are only a license to sue other people in court if they copy what you are doing.”
There is one vital thing you omitted. To get a patent an invention’s details must be “reduced to practice”. Commercial production is not required.
That means there must be WORKING prototypes using the “invention”.
It looks like a drawer blueprint to rescue a camera system, which is already dead: 4/3.
Yes, Olympus do the simple, but the patent is only to 4/3 DSLR.
Dear ingenious Oly-Pan-tech-freaks!
Is there a possibility to get CDAF-Software updates for PDAF-lenses? For example for the
• Zuiko 12-60mm/F 2.8-4
• Zuiko 14-35mm/F 2.0
• Zuiko 35-100mm/F 2.0
Best regards
You need hardware updates. MFT has two additonal contacts to get better CDAF performance, but it’s always an advantage to use the latest firmware in the lenses. You can check that with the Olympus Software that came with your camera.
Dear Spam!
Thank you very much!
Best regards
I miss the lenses I used with my e3.. I wouldn’t mind the second option at all, that would be a great camera with some of the nicer (price vs performance) lenses I used to have like the 12-60, 50-200.. That was such an awesome two lens combo..
I have suggested in other forums that all Olympus needs to do to give it a real competitive advantage is to make an upgradable FT camera. Imagine being able to simply plug in a new sensor as improved versions become available. Who amongst us FT users would not jump at the chance to upgrade our aging E1’s to 10/12MP? It gets so tedious to have to part with our cherished camera bodies just when we have really come to terms with them just to keep up. The bodies themselves seem to have reached a level of technical maturity where, apart from the sensor, there should be at least 5/6 years in them before new features overtake them.