Possible Olympus FF dilemma....what will they do?

zuikowesty wrote:

morpheus777 wrote:

cangopluto wrote:

morpheus777 wrote:

4/3 and micro 4/3 didn't compliment each other from a sensor size/image quality perspective.

You do know that 4/3 and m4/3 uses/is the same sensor/size/format, right?

-- hide signature --

https://500px.com/cango

Yes of course, I'm not new to 4/3 or Micro 4/3. But let's use a little logic and think this through. If I'm Olympus and I have two different mounts using the same sensor/sensor size, I'm not utilizing my resources very well. On the other hand, if I kill one and focus all my efforts on the other mount, I can maximize my R&D budget, marketing, etc. So back to my original statement, the two didn't compliment each other, they competed. That's cannibalization. Not fun for profit margins, nor is it logical.

However, if you have a Micro 4/3 mount and a full frame mount, they compliment each other quite nicely given the size, weight, and performance differences between the two sensor sizes. That could fit into a nice Olympus ecosystem. Perhaps a full frame line geared toward professional shooters, and the M43 lineup geared toward advanced amateurs, or pros wanting compactness.

And a high Mp FF body could still support mFT lenses in a crop mode at 12-16 Mp. Has anyone measured the image circle of mFT and FT lenses? Perhaps a FF body could offer several crop modes depending on the image circle of the lens in use. This could cut into mFT body sales though, and would only work if the FF flange distance was < mFT which might be difficult to achieve and still offer flexibility in FF lens design.

-- hide signature --

Shawn Wright
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikowesty/

The Nikon D800 has 36Mpix that gives 15.4 Mpix in DX (APS-C, that equals to 9Mpix in m43

A 42Mpix FF sensor cropped to m43 format would give 10.5 Mpix