micro 4/3 Panasonic - Olympus War ?

[ruben]

Once upon a time, a few months ago, there were two different micro 4/3 cameras, well designed to catch the attention of very different kind of shooters. The G-1, dslr type, and the EP-1, p&s type (or inside RFF - "rangefinder type"). And everyone was happy, at the beggining at least.

What happen afterwards between Panasonic and Olympus I have no idea. But if I can understand anything about the new anounced GF1 - this is a Panasonic attempt to manufacture an improved EP1. It has nothing to do with the former G1, and I don't think any lover of the G1 viewfinder will offer his body at the streets by embracing the new tiny and dismountable EVF. And so forth for the flippable G-1 lcd and other features.

So, in other words, Panasonic is trying to steal the prospective EP1 buyers from Olympus, and worse than that, they are doing this in advance from the actual release of the camera to the market. Another boot giving to Olympus.

If this becomes a permanent trend, it has some logic. As a non-legacy camera manufacturer Panasonic will be better done by catching the upper p&s buyers, while Olympus will be left divided into the p&s camp and the 4/3 dslrs. Bye to micro 4/3 P&S styled that will not compete with the 4/3 manufcture dslr lines. Bye to Jamaica and the margaritas. Back to heat pressing work.

Olympus could do two things. One would be to launch an even better EP to compete with the newer GF1. Unless there is something we do not know, it is too late for this.

The other option, the clever one, would take advantage of Panasonic drive away from the small type micro dslr, and design an improved Oly G-1 type.

But here Olympus finds itself against the wall. It will not be able to upgrade too much the non micro 4/3, which after the G-1 starts to become obsolete. And this will involve another "betrayal" of Oly customers, a move that has already an hystoric precedent, when Olympus finds itself short of money.

For us, G-1 users, it involves the possibility that finally we may have an Olympus "G-1 body IS", which Panasonic dennyied us from.

Of course all these are speculations only. Let's see what happens in fact.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[count_zero]

I agree that the SLR mirror setup is useless with digital photography. The LCD/EVF is much better because you simply see what the sensor see's. I think the EVF projects a slighter more lighted image because the lens closer to the sensor when compared to the dSLR.

On that same note, I had a salesman at one of the local camera shops try to convince me that using adapters on micro 4/3 reduces the light and thus affects your fstop. So, I went home and tested it out with my Nikon F adapter on my EP-1 vs. my n90s, and the image on the EP-1 LCD was brighter than the SLR view finder with the same settings and same lens (50mm f1.8D). My only gripe is the 2x crop factor, but the new 20mm f1.7 lens from Panasonic fixes that issue.

 

[JoeV]

I agree that the SLR mirror setup is useless with digital photography. The LCD/EVF is much better because you simply see what the sensor see's. I think the EVF projects a slighter more lighted image because the lens closer to the sensor when compared to the dSLR.

On that same note, I had a salesman at one of the local camera shops try to convince me that using adapters on micro 4/3 reduces the light and thus affects your fstop. So, I went home and tested it out with my Nikon F adapter on my EP-1 vs. my n90s, and the image on the EP-1 LCD was brighter than the SLR view finder with the same settings and same lens (50mm f1.8D). My only gripe is the 2x crop factor, but the new 20mm f1.7 lens from Panasonic fixes that issue.

The lens (assuming we're talking about a legacy, manual focus lens adapted to a u4/3 body) is the same distance to the sensor, in either kind of body, as compared to the SLR viewscreen. If this were not the case, the focus at the ground glass of the optical SLR viewfinder wouldn't match the focus at the film plane. And the film plane focus has the be the same distance as an adapted lens on a u4/3 body, or else infinity focus wouldn't match.

The brighter display on the EVF is due to electronic amplification of the image, it's not related to optical differences between the two types of cameras.

~Joe

 

[ferider]

I too think time is ripe for Nikon and Canon to enter the micro 4/3 race. Too big advantages are now at risk at the hands of too small companies.

Just a small note that Panasonic/MEI is more than 10 times bigger than Nikon.

I myself am still waiting for a u4/3 true RF. The more established the format, the more competion ("war"), the likelier this will happen.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[250swb]

Once upon a time, a few months ago, there were two different micro 4/3 cameras, well designed to catch the attention of very different kind of shooters. The G-1, dslr type, and the EP-1, p&s type (or inside RFF - "rangefinder type"). And everyone was happy, at the beggining at least.

Cheers,
Ruben

You know, I would guess that if Canon and Nikon shared a common lens mount there would be millions of people around the world as happy as pigs in muck. Gone the tie in to only one brand of lens or body, gone the fiscal stress of changing systems lock stock and barrel, gone the lack of competition for your dollars. But with m4/3 its all a big problem! Good grief, captitalism has taken the world this far with consumer choice, lets not start wringing our hands now.

Steve

 

[kuzano]

The information out near the first of 2009....

The information out near the first of 2009....

Basically we were told that 2009 would yield two Olympus micro cameras and a Panasonic micro (beside the GH1)

Oly would intro a small interchangable lens micro body and kits.
Hence the EP-1

Panasonic would respond with a small interchangable lens micro.

Later in the year, Olympus would intro a response to the G1/GH1.

Panasonic has practiced in lens IS since the intro of the Leica Mega OIS lens with the L1.

Olympus has used in-body IS as it's stabilization solution.

I hope the next Olympus is consistent with the roadmap and this formula.

The EP-2 will make me happy if it is a culmination of all things good about the Panasonic AND Olympus micro 4/3rds. That would be a camera smaller than the e420, about the size of the G1, with inbody IS, the hotshoe EVF, the latest sensor as in the GH and the latest processing engine. Compatibility will all lenses for both Panasonic and Olympus.

I haven't seen any surprises in the list of Pana/Oly micros and think the chances are good that the EP-2 will be the camera I have been waiting for.

Well, unless the 2010 road map holds out hope for even more good things.

Planted halfway between Point/Shoot small sensor cameras, and behemoth FF sensor cameras, OLY/Panasonic are busting some real butt in the digital camera market.

 

[shadowfox]

A lot of Olympus DSLR users like myself can't shake the fear that in recognizing the "success" of the m4/3rd, Olympus will eventually abandon the DSLR line.

 

[rxmd]

Ah, but Cosina could if they are willing to entertain the idea.

However, they aren't. Cosina has never built a digital camera [1]. Cosina's CEO dislikes digital cameras. ("Look at the short life of digital SLRs and their continuously falling prices. Why should I get into that mess?")

You won't get a digital RF from anyone except Leica. The market is too uninteresting.

Philipp

[1] They participated in exactly one, which had its electronics done by Epson and apparently didn't warrant a second model.

 

[ruben]

See footnote



I guess they would sell about three of them, because most of the world wouldn't be interested in rangefinder focusing over autofocus, and those few customers who prefer rangefinder focusing would be up in arms against each other complaining that it need a battery, that it should or shouldn't be in the M form factor, that the lenses don't have aperture rings, that it doesn't have an advance lever, that it has a display, that the viewfinder is or isn't electronic, etc.

Hi Philipp,

First a warm hellow, as a lot of time passed since we had a virtual meeting.

As for the issue itself, the rangefinder digital, it is my technically unenligthened opinion after using the G-1, that it would be nice to mix an.....

.....Ok I will put it in nowadays terminology, let's say a digital AF that can perform manual focus too, like any other dslr, but via a manual rangefinder mechanical mechanism.

The AF will be performed at the back screen, the MF at the VF. Both images will be able to be seen at the lcd back screen.

I have no idea what this amounts in techology. But this retro innovation may make the camera widely saleable.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[count_zero]

The lens (assuming we're talking about a legacy, manual focus lens adapted to a u4/3 body) is the same distance to the sensor, in either kind of body, as compared to the SLR viewscreen. If this were not the case, the focus at the ground glass of the optical SLR viewfinder wouldn't match the focus at the film plane. And the film plane focus has the be the same distance as an adapted lens on a u4/3 body, or else infinity focus wouldn't match.

The brighter display on the EVF is due to electronic amplification of the image, it's not related to optical differences between the two types of cameras.

~Joe

What I did was turn off the lights in my room, then turned on a light down the hallway. Set the lens to f1.8 and focused on the light down the hallway (about 25 feet). The N90s was set to ISO 3200, shutter speed was 100 with the light sensor balanced (matrix mode). I did the same with the EP-1 except shutter speed went up to 125 with the light meter balanced. It could be that the matrix light mode algorithm is a little different on the EP-1 vs. the N90s. I was happy with the results, the guy at the camera store got me all paranoid that my fast nikon lenses would be useless with the adapter. Now, its a tough choice between getting the new panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens, or just hold out for Olympus to build a faster wider lens.

 

[ruben]

A lot of Olympus DSLR users like myself can't shake the fear that in recognizing the "success" of the m4/3rd, Olympus will eventually abandon the DSLR line.

Like Fred said, "you can count on it".

Why ? Because Olympus is not big enough to sustain due research for a long time.

In my opinion, the micro 4/3 is basically more advanced than the mirror 4/3 - But this is not equal to say that the mirror 4/3 is technically doomed if due investment is made on research.

But Olympus will have to seat and make accounts where they are going to invest. In principle, they could decide that they abandon the micro 4/3 to Panasonic, continue with their mirror 4/3 and from time to time manufacture make a guerilla assault on Panasonic by the launching phony micro 4/3 models, that despite of representing no serious advance, they could make some bucks for Olympus, and hurt Panasonic a bit.

But this alternative, would let Olympus out of the micro 4/3 market, facing the Olympus old time competitors, the true Olympus nightmare - Nikon and Canon. Here Olympus is traditionally doomed, unless another Maitani shows up.

Now, let me tell you a secret. The 4/3 sensor, be it installed on an micro 4/3, or on a mother mirror 4/3 brings an image of much less quality than that from the traditional frull frame dslr. The only justification is the ratio between image quality and camera size.

Therefore two things:
a) with the micro 4/3, the best ratio has been achieved within the 4/3 idea.

b) the only way left for Olympus mirror production of 4/3 mirror cameras would be to invest on research of a bigger size 4/3 sensor that would near the total area of Nikon and Canon dslrs. This may change the focal length of their existing lenses, hopefully leaving some of them alive, but would save the camera lens mount.

Could Olympus fight on 2 fronts ?

I doubt it. But my doubt -by now- is not worther than your hope.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

Just a small note that Panasonic/MEI is more than 10 times bigger than Nikon.

Cheers,

Roland.

Hi Roland,

This may be the case indeed, but on camera manufacturing Panasonic and Sony are still just passing by tourists. Not the case with Nikon. Nor even with the too much smaller Olympus.

Had I to marry with a camera mount, I would still have more confidence with the Olympus Medici than with the Panasonic Borgia.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[250swb]

Like Fred said, "you can count on it".

Now, let me tell you a secret. The 4/3 sensor, be it installed on an micro 4/3, or on a mother mirror 4/3 brings an image of much less quality than that from the traditional frull frame dslr. The only justification is the ratio between image quality and camera size.

Cheers,
Ruben

Heres another 'secret' to balance out this rubbish. The Nikon D3, and indeed D700, both 'full frame' DSLRs resolve less detail (have less resolution) than the Panasonic G1 sensor (with kit lens or a common control lens) under controlled tests.

So, thats 'much less quality' is it? Or is it simply that you will only notice the difference if you want mega sized images, and therefore need to opt for using a 'full frame' DSLR? If you can't tell the difference with a 16x20 image made under normal circumstances (which you can't) it would be difficult, nay absurd, to say one is 'much less quality' than the other.

Steve

 

[ruben]

Heres another 'secret' to balance out this rubbish. The Nikon D3, and indeed D700, both 'full frame' DSLRs resolve less detail (have less resolution) than the Panasonic G1 sensor (with kit lens or a common control lens) under controlled tests.

So, thats 'much less quality' is it? Or is it simply that you will only notice the difference if you want mega sized images, and therefore need to opt for using a 'full frame' DSLR? If you can't tell the difference with a 16x20 image made under normal circumstances (which you can't) it would be difficult, nay absurd, to say one is 'much less quality' than the other.

Steve

Hi Steve,

If you were to get so upset by every "rubbish" I write, your life will be rather short.

You are right in your first paragraph that simple sensor size doesn't make image quality and a chain of factors is directly related.

But I disagree with both paragraphs concerning what could be called "image quality" at isos that go beyond the happy flowers photographer needs. If you compare the "controlled tests" of images of iso 6400 of both Nikon cameras you mentioned with EP1 or G1 iso 3200 images, you will clearly see the superiority of the Nikon images.

Iso 6400 may be unfashionable for the happy flower photographer, but even the quality of the G-1 at iso 3200 is largely pending good lighting conditions - so good that they make questionable the very value of iso 3200 when using the G-1. Therefore, being myself a G-1 user, I am sorry to confess that iso+raw 1600 is the real limit of my dear camera.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[250swb]

Hi Steve,

If you were to get so upset by every "rubbish" I write, your life will be rather short.

You are right in your first paragraph that simple sensor size doesn't make image quality and a chain of factors is directly related.

But I disagree with both paragraphs concerning what could be called "image quality" at isos that go beyond the happy flowers photographer needs. If you compare the "controlled tests" of images of iso 6400 of both Nikon cameras you mentioned with EP1 or G1 iso 3200 images, you will clearly see the superiority of the Nikon images.

Iso 6400 may be unfashionable for the happy flower photographer, but even the quality of the G-1 at iso 3200 is largely pending good lighting conditions - so good that they make questionable the very value of iso 3200 when using the G-1. Therefore, being myself a G-1 user, I am sorry to confess that iso+raw 1600 is the real limit of my dear camera.

Cheers,
Ruben

Except that in my last paragraph I carefully included the words 'made under normal circumstances', so its a naughty trick to change the discussion to extreme circumstances, namely high ISO.

But you are making broad brush statements, and most cameras are not used in broad brush circumstances. Hardly anybody uses all the functions of a modern camera, only those they need. Likewise hardly anybody needs very high ISO, its not an avenue of photography that has hitherto been a limit to photographers (they can still use a tripod), but a niche area that makes some photography more accessible. If you want a wall sized print, and/or a photograph made hand held at the dead of night, buy a Nikon D3. In every other circumstance those benefits of a D3 will be rendered neutral if compared to many modern DLSR type cameras.

So even with its undoubted high ISO ability of the D3 it is hard to claim it will be producing much higher quality images other than during a very small proportion of its life in an average photographers hands, whether pro or amateur. And if ultimate quality at the extremes of photography is so important, apart from an ability to snap candid sports or social/street photos ('are you pleased to see me, or is that a D3 hidden under your jacket'!) , then why is anybody messing about with a DSLR instead of Medium Format?

As for the idea of 'happy flower photographers' not wanting nor needing high ISO images you are probably right, but I'm sure they would see the equally funny and uncomplimentary obverse side of the image created, that of the seriously grizzled furrow brow down in the gutter street shooter wearing combat fatigues. As they may say, 'wake up and smell the roses'

Steve

 

[ruben]

.............. And if ultimate quality at the extremes of photography is so important, ........ then why is anybody messing about with a DSLR instead of Medium Format?


Steve

But my dear fellow, with all due respect, you are loosing sight of the Northern star.

Everybody and anybody is very happy with the gadgetery side of digital photography. This brings good revenues, but it is still to be demonstrated that good prints are attached.

Because if I am supposed to pay four grands body only to have something alike the achievents of film, then you and me know there is a problem, no matter what anybody is messing about. And first of all, I am not anybody.

And this is the part of the promise the m4/3 should be measured by. First, the digital designers want me to believe I don't need a viewfinder, now you follow and want make me believe ISO 200 will make happy everybody ? It sounds a bit Orwelian.

The facts are that high end dslrs are being manufactured, otherwise Olympus could find shelter there, and the competition for better image rendition at higher ISO goes on with full steam.

Camera industry has not escaped the capitalist laws of quality and convenience through a Christmas color lights festival.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[250swb]

, now you follow and want make me believe ISO 200 will make happy everybody ? It sounds a bit Orwelian.



Cheers,
Ruben

You don't seem to mind writing things up to suit yourself Ruben, but do you realize everybody can read it? Its the internet, and people if they are bothered they can check to see if I said anything like that.

But while ever most (not "everybody") photographers percieive 200 ISO (or thereabouts) as the default level for maximum quality most cameras will be set at it for most of the lifetime of the camera. That is true for a Nikon D3 as it is a humble P&S. If in future the ISO base level for maximim quality (still taking about for most photographers in case you want to mis-quote me) goes up, to say 6400 ISO, then we can assume something like 100,000 ISO and upwards will be the new ceiling. Sounds great doesn't it!!!

Or does it? I mean ask yourself this.... The camera (D3 for instance) is already starting to push perceptions of reality with high ISO performance which makes dull weather seem like bright daylight. So will everybody in the future seek to make nightime images that look like daylight, when ISO and sensors get sensitive enough to beat the human eye? That seems to be the logic of where some photographers obsessions with the latest and best ISO performance is taking them. They haven't thought through the consequences.

Lets get this quickly out of the way or you will make something up about it Ruben. There will be uses for very high ISO performance, like the private detective, or a voyeur, or an astronomer for instance. But I would say there is a plateau whereby hopefully photographers will realize that high ISO is a nice toy, but what is gained in image making possibilities is more than lost in recording the true event, what the eye see's. Already we have photographers wetting themselves about what they can see in the shadows of the proverbial dimly lit cafe when they bump a D3 up to 6400 ISO. What they are forgetting is that their eye doesn't register what is in those peripheral shadows anyway, its a trick of the camera, its DR and ISO sensitivity. Its all smoke and mirrors, kidding themselves this is a great invention. As soon as the romantic dimly lit cafe routinely starts to look like a midday lunch hour truth will be lost. This is already done with extreme HDR images, but we know they are HDR images, or suspect as much.

So you see I am very sceptical about the idea that what we need is higher ISO performance if the image is to continue reflecting the true feelings and atmosphere and story telling abilities of the eye and brain. Truth to the subject in that dimly lit cafe will be consigned to the bin at 12,000 ISO, although no doubt if a fight broke out it would be useful for capturing the flying teeth. If 12,000 ISO and wide DR becomes a default base level for 'highest quality' photographers will still be able to manipulate the image to make a true representation of the dimly lit cafe through exposure, post processing etc. But going back to what most photographers do, which is leave the camera set to perform as many tricks as possible at the optimum settings, a turning point could be coming for photography that permanently changes what we routinely take as the truth behind the image.

RF cameras are loved because they respond and record on a human scale. The foibles of the camera are part of the image making, and the subject matter tends to be candid and understandable within the print on a human one to one level. High ISO and DR used for the sake of using it will further marginalise photographers seeking to speak one to one with their audience. It will be Nikon or Canon, (or Leica !!) that creates a lie lurking behind the image that nobody will suspect or know about. Every day (or dimly lit cafe) will be bright for most photographers and the viewer will never know the truth.

Steve

 

[ruben]

Ok, my friend, with all arguments alredy exposed, I think this is a good opportunity to end our dialogue.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[250swb]

"Chances are, if you believe the light, you are going to believe that the things photographed physically existed in the world. It's this belief that gives the still photograph its power." ...and thats what there is at stake. The quote is from the truly great photographer Henry Wessel Jr.

Steve

 

[spiderfrank]

Or does it? I mean ask yourself this.... The camera (D3 for instance) is already starting to push perceptions of reality with high ISO performance which makes dull weather seem like bright daylight.


But I would say there is a plateau whereby hopefully photographers will realize that high ISO is a nice toy, but what is gained in image making possibilities is more than lost in recording the true event, what the eye see's. Already we have photographers wetting themselves about what they can see in the shadows of the proverbial dimly lit cafe when they bump a D3 up to 6400 ISO. What they are forgetting is that their eye doesn't register what is in those peripheral shadows anyway, its a trick of the camera, its DR and ISO sensitivity. Its all smoke and mirrors, kidding themselves this is a great invention. As soon as the romantic dimly lit cafe routinely starts to look like a midday lunch hour truth will be lost.

Every day (or dimly lit cafe) will be bright for most photographers and the viewer will never know the truth.

Steve

Steve, i quoted some of your text, just to say how much your considerations are right.
Last month I was with a friend, visiting an old church, and there was a beautiful ray of light from the window. I shot with my old RF at 160 iso, using "bulb", and my goal was to have the ray of light and the dark outside. My friend, with his D300, pulled up the iso to 6400, and made a beautiful shot of the church with all the benches and, the walls, and so on... But it was not what my eyes could capture, nor the real atmosphere in the church. The future is here! ;-)