Micro 4/3 - storm in a teacup ?

[FD_Paul]

With the likes of the new Canon and Ricoh announcements, I wonder if we really are on the cusp of a revolution towards the micro 4/3 standard?

There seems to be little interest from Canon in adopting it, and a somewhat mixed opinion on the merits of the EP-1 in consumer hands (ie, is the EP-1 really a market killer - enough to spur investment into new models from other manufacturers?).

It will certainly be an interesting next 12 months - but I wonder if micro 4/3 will eventually dominate or remain an expensive niche market for those with legacy glass? If the latter, then I fear we will not have as much to choose from as we think we might.

 

[Avotius]

No doubt micro 4/3 will not dominate the market, the big money still goes to canon and nikon for their cameras and lenses because if not for their name's clout, because a lot of people who buy the lower end dlsr's and lenses dont know any better. They go buy what they are familiar with, and many of the uninitiated wont even think to be looking at this other stuff like mirror less m4/3 type cameras. I think that this new type of camera really was made for those of us who know the compromises of this technology and are willing to put up with them for the sake of having a camera that we can take around with the benifits of m4/3 like smaller body sizes and such.

The next 12 months probably wont be all that amazing in terms of all the camera companies suddenly jumping on this new format, I think we are looking more at a niche camera now.

 

[Pablito]

Tempest in a teacup.

Since the advent of digital cameras, no one seems to tire of the "Oh-wow, lookit the newest - latest - bestest" game, the "Oh blessings, will this be THE ONE that will surely bring me into harmony with the Universe" game which enthusiasts seem to play with each other every 6 months or every year and then start all over again 6 months or one year later.

I'm tired of it, and even though I like new stuff as much as the next guy, I don't see any of the new cameras as anything but a progression. It interests me less and less every day.

Here is a safe bet: digital cameras will get better, less noisy, better image quality in smaller package etc. Eventually, we will all have small cameras with viewfinders and really good image quality with fast lenses. It's happenning, little by little.

It's what I expect, so it does not really excite me when it happens.

Hasta mañana, RFF. Sweet dreams.

 

[kid_a]

No doubt micro 4/3 will not dominate the market, the big money still goes to canon and nikon for their cameras and lenses because if not for their name's clout, because a lot of people who buy the lower end dlsr's and lenses dont know any better. They go buy what they are familiar with, and many of the uninitiated wont even think to be looking at this other stuff like mirror less m4/3 type cameras. I think that this new type of camera really was made for those of us who know the compromises of this technology and are willing to put up with them for the sake of having a camera that we can take around with the benifits of m4/3 like smaller body sizes and such.

The next 12 months probably wont be all that amazing in terms of all the camera companies suddenly jumping on this new format, I think we are looking more at a niche camera now.

I am very confident that Nikon will "jump on this new format". Considering their new partnership with Fuji, their recent patent for a mirrorless camera, and a recent conversation with their rep.. to me it seems imminent.

 

[payasam]

First came cameras with fixed lenses, then came cameras whose lenses could be changed. First came small sensors, then came larger sensors. Thus came the EP-1.

Canon and Nikon will undoubtedly come out with things similar to the EP-1, but they are not likely to adopt the Micro 4/3 standard. The multiplicity of standards that has characterised photography will probably never give way to compatibility.

 

[250swb]

With the likes of the new Canon and Ricoh announcements, I wonder if we really are on the cusp of a revolution towards the micro 4/3 standard?

snip

I wouldn't bet against the G11 being the last gasp effort of the G series. What does it have to offer now? Anybody who wants a fully featured small camera will now get all it can offer, and considerably more, with the m4/3 format. The S90 is now the more credible camera as a P&S, the advanced G series P&S is now redundant.

Just around the corner is the Panasonic G-F1 (to be announced early September), and probably before Xmas the Olympus E-P2. By then there will be eight m4/3 dedicated lenses available or announced for release, plus all the 'other' manufacturer lenses that maintain loyalty through investment in large systems. Thats going to be one heck of a 'niche market', I wish I had shares in it.

Steve

 

[Tuolumne]

I've given up predicting markets. What I do know is the Panny Lumix G1 does so much of what I need that I am considering giving up my Leica and Nikon systems in favor of it. The Panny m4/3rds lenses are fantastic. I really can't tell them apart from the legacy Leica glass mounted on the camera.

/T

 

[ed1234]

I've given up predicting markets. What I do know is the Panny Lumix G1 does so much of what I need that I am considering giving up my Leica and Nikon systems in favor of it. The Panny m4/3rds lenses are fantastic. I really can't tell them apart from the legacy Leica glass mounted on the camera.

/T

X2, My FE2 will be on the shelf for some time as well, Pana did a pretty job on the lens, the lens is really on par with the big brands, which was a surprise for me. Don't give up on the Leica systems, as what I am doing is Leica for film and G1 for digital, plus M-lens goes on the Pana, so wide angle on Leica and the same lenses will become tele on Pana.

 

[Trius]

I believe m4/3 is a sneaky little bâtard. It has so many things going for it that manufacturers will have to respond, whether by adopting the standard (which is a "semi-open" standard) or producing their own similar system.

The only thing that bothers me about the Panasonic and even Olympus m4/3 lenses is that it appears both manufacturers are relying on in-camera processing to correct for less than "perfect" lens characteristics. That gives me pause, as it opens up the possibility that an otherwise great body in the future might have unforseen processing faults, requiring upgrade or repair ... not that a famous maker in Solms ever had to issue an expensive fix consisting of free filters ... and that was so well received by early adopters.

 

[250swb]

The only thing that bothers me about the Panasonic and even Olympus m4/3 lenses is that it appears both manufacturers are relying on in-camera processing to correct for less than "perfect" lens characteristics. That gives me pause, as it opens up the possibility that an otherwise great body in the future might have unforseen processing faults, requiring upgrade or repair ... not that a famous maker in Solms ever had to issue an expensive fix consisting of free filters ... and that was so well received by early adopters.

You mean like wide angle distortion or CA? What lens manufacturer wouldn't bite your arm off for a standardised software solution to that, so they can move on from ancient but still necessary theories that stifle lens design? Are you sure you aren't seeing the glass as half empty rather than half full? The software correction is a characteristic of the lens Firmware anyway, not the body.

Steve

 

[Trius]

Steve, I'm not an optical engineer, so I won't be able to follow you completely. I think what you are saying is "Who cares if 'correction' resides in glass or in software?"

I still get stuck on a lens needing correction via pixel-manipulation. Seems like more of an economic argument than pure optical design. But then again, I'm curmudgeonly.

 

[Tuolumne]

X2, My FE2 will be on the shelf for some time as well, Pana did a pretty job on the lens, the lens is really on par with the big brands, which was a surprise for me. Don't give up on the Leica systems, as what I am doing is Leica for film and G1 for digital, plus M-lens goes on the Pana, so wide angle on Leica and the same lenses will become tele on Pana.

I am giving up on film for now and the Panny G1 tele lenses are good enough on their own. If I keep my Leica and Nikon glass it will be for nostalgia. OTOH, if I can get a Nikon F adapter for m4/3rds I will use my Nikon tele lenses on it. The 2x crop factor would make them really l-o-n-g.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

Steve, I'm not an optical engineer, so I won't be able to follow you completely. I think what you are saying is "Who cares if 'correction' resides in glass or in software?"

I still get stuck on a lens needing correction via pixel-manipulation. Seems like more of an economic argument than pure optical design. But then again, I'm curmudgeonly.

If you can't tell the difference, then it doesn't matter.

/T

 

[Trius]

As long as it's in the lens and it truly doesn't make a difference, yeah. I guess.

 

[ruben]

I think the following iso 1600 image may end the discussion, and it's even not done with a prime, just the kit zoom

For further data about it, after you finnish your tea, you can go to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30387493@N08/3856290759/

 

[count_zero]

I would like to see u4/3 adopted by more vendors, but I don't think it will happen. Not because it's a bad standard, but simply due to economics. In the tech industry everyone is looking for the "razor and the blade" model, where you buy a "razor" for dirt cheap, but then spend an arm and a leg for new "blades". In this case the camera is the "razor" and the lens is the "blade". Olympus and Pany have their cheap razors now, and will be pushing more blades soon. Plus, I bet leica will jump in with a micro Digilux camera and a set of digital lenses that are pannasonic made, but leica rebranded/certified at higher cost.

I bet Nikon will make a D series camera without the SLR parts to cut down cost, but continue selling the DX lenses for it. Same with Canon. Their is no advantage for Nikon or Canon to release u4/3 lenses because it could cheapen the perception of their brands. You have to figure most non professionals buy Nikon or Canon simply for the name, no need to encourage the uninformed about an alternative compatible brand. Plus, you have to factor in the cost of retooling the manufacturing line for a new standard. This would be unfeasably expensive for big production lines like Nikon and Canon.

Maybe, Pentax will get into the u4/3. Definatly not Sony since they like to keep everything propriety to a fault (either win everything or drop the business).

 

[Harry Lime]

Yes and no. They are first out of the gate, but it will be interesting to see what happens if Nikon/Canon/Samsung etc come out with similar bodies that use an APS-C sensor. At that point the biggest advantage of the M4/3 system may be that they all share a common lens mount.

 

[mawz]

With the likes of the new Canon and Ricoh announcements, I wonder if we really are on the cusp of a revolution towards the micro 4/3 standard?

I don't see how those announcements really matter to m43. None of those three cameras can even approach the m43 cameras for IQ over ISO 200. Two are great pocket cameras (the GRDIII and S90) to compete with Panasonic's LX3 and the third (G11) is a camera that has essentially lost its way 3 revisions ago with the G7 and which is slowly trying to evolve back into what the G6 was without dealing with the fact that the G6's niche no longer exists.

As to m43, I don't expect to see any major vendor jump onto the system, but I do expect to eventually see similar cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony. Who knows about Pentax. Samsung of course has already officially announced it will be making something similar.

 

[John Camp]

I have a whole bunch of cameras, including the G1 and E-P1, the Nikon D300 and D3, and the Leica M8. The reasons for this are complicated, but essentially, I wanted top end cameras for rough pj-style work (the D3 and D300, which, with their different FOVs, are wonderful complements); and the others are part of my search for smaller, easily carried high-IQ cameras.

A few thoughts:

The m4/3 cameras are now my favorites, routinely carried in my car. I can get both cameras and five lenses in a bag that formerly carried an M8 and a few lenses, and the bag is quite a bit lighter than the Leica gear. Image quality is comparable to the D300, but the cameras are not nearly as rugged, nor are the viewfinder systems as good, and the system itself is much more limited. The Nikon flash system alone is worth the cost of the Nikons. However, for walk-around cameras, the m4/3s can't be beat. I simply don't walk around with either Nikon -- it's like carrying an anchor around your neck.

Nikon already produces miniaturized versions of the D300 in their entry-level cameras, but these are not seen as a threat to the m4/3 because they are not *professional.* If Nikon or Canon decided to build a miniaturized, pro-quality APS-C camera (along the lines, say, of the D5000) m4/3 would have a serious competitor.

The top-end N and C cameras now weigh as much or more than the old 4x5 Speed Graphics that got ambushed by "miniature" cameras in the 40s and the 50s. The same thing could happen again, if m4/3 establishes itself, and IQ continues to improve. The fact is, the m4/3 cameras would easily be good enough for most PJ work, given a few system enhancements, and not even PJs, who have to carry back-up bodies and a variety of lenses, like to walk around with anchors hanging off their shoulders.

And don't even get me started on international air travel with a full Nikon system...

 

[FD_Paul]

I look at photos of what professional photographers were holding in their hands back in the seventies and eighties, and compare that with what pros are lugging around today. It strikes me as odd that in this age of miniaturisation, the SLR form factor has grown in size. Compare something like the Canon A1 with the Canon 5D with comparable FD versus EF glass.

I wonder if we're witnessing the very beginnings of a new shift in thinking and a return to simpler times.