mh2000
Well-known
>>Nothing against the system... I just don't see it as on par with the vast array of what Nikon and Canon have offered for many, many years. It's just an opinion.
Of course, that's why they should continue to work on doing what they do well... creating a unique system that doesn't try to duplicate what Canon and Nikon already do really well.
Of course, that's why they should continue to work on doing what they do well... creating a unique system that doesn't try to duplicate what Canon and Nikon already do really well.
I can agree with that mh2000 i.e. Olympus doing what they are doing.
YYV_146
Well-known
Adding up the benefits of IBIS and the generally faster lens lineup, there may even an advantage compared to non-stabilized FF system in terms of high ISO.
IMO the issue lies in delivering the level of pixel count people who make prints have grown accustomed to (~20MP, even 36) and providing lenses fast enough that they don't significantly lag behind FF lenses in terms of background separation. F1.8 zooms and F1.2 primes are needed to get the kind of DOF expected of rather slow FF lenses...
IMO the issue lies in delivering the level of pixel count people who make prints have grown accustomed to (~20MP, even 36) and providing lenses fast enough that they don't significantly lag behind FF lenses in terms of background separation. F1.8 zooms and F1.2 primes are needed to get the kind of DOF expected of rather slow FF lenses...
Ronald M
Veteran
They can if they want, but it is not a volume business. We already have Leica, Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Pros will not switch easily and they need a completer line of AF lenses.
mh2000
Well-known
If someone is looking for 20-36MP sensors and very thin DoF, then m43 is probably not the system they should be considering. Personally, I usually wished I had more DoF when shooting faster lenses on FF, not less and even on m43, I would still like more DoF than I get with my Oly 45, even stopped down.
As a system, m43 is unique. I like it, but if I was looking for FF I'd probably just go back to Canon instead of buying into a new (probably expensive) Oly system with only a few available lenses.
DominikDUK
Well-known
No they shouldn't they have their niche and can't compete with Nikon, Canon and Sony.
Matus
Well-known
I would rather see Olympus keeping the great work in developing m43 rather then trying to top Sony (and soon Fuji - let's see about that) in FX format. They would have to start from the beginning - camera, lenses - and be at least as good as Sony is (going to be?). There are much fewer buyers in FX than in m43 me thinks - at least in 'non pro' market.
amalric
Member
I am not averse at Olympus trying some sort of 'Super 4/3' but that doesn't mean it must be FF35. In other words I don't believe the latter is a standard for digital mirrorless, the way it was to film.
Sony these days is providing a demonstration: lenses below 35mm suffer a loss of resolution, colour, brightness in the edges. Even the 55mm is big, presumably to be telecentric. Leica was better, but limited in the focal range too.
m4/3 instead is unlimited, and its resolution has almost reached perfection for the size. It has none of the limitations in reactiveness shown by the Sony. Therefore it provides an excellent 'decisive moment' camera with a long way ahead.
If they make it a little bigger, without making it worse, then perhaps. But it's not a necessity either.
Sony these days is providing a demonstration: lenses below 35mm suffer a loss of resolution, colour, brightness in the edges. Even the 55mm is big, presumably to be telecentric. Leica was better, but limited in the focal range too.
m4/3 instead is unlimited, and its resolution has almost reached perfection for the size. It has none of the limitations in reactiveness shown by the Sony. Therefore it provides an excellent 'decisive moment' camera with a long way ahead.
If they make it a little bigger, without making it worse, then perhaps. But it's not a necessity either.