Bingley
Veteran
This is an interesting discussion, and thanks to Keith for starting it. For me, m4/3ds hit a sweet spot: very high quality images, superior native lenses, the ability to use legacy glass when I want to, modest prices, and compact size. My E-PL1 is about the size of a Leica CL and takes great photos, particularly with the 20/1.7. I will probably buy an OMD in due course. I really like the images I've seen from some other digital formats, but the cameras either cost more than I'm willing to pay or impose other compromises that aren't worth it to me. So, for now, I'm happy w/ m4/3ds. The sensor is more than good enough, so that I don't see FF is so much better as to justify the higher cost.
You find a format you like and make due with it. I imagine there were discussions in the 1930s about the compromises involved in using those revolutionary new 35mm film cameras...
You find a format you like and make due with it. I imagine there were discussions in the 1930s about the compromises involved in using those revolutionary new 35mm film cameras...
Harry S.
Well-known
The thing that always bothered me about M4/3 are the cameras themselves. To my knowledge up until the OMD, all of them had pretty abysmal (or absent!) optical viewfinders. To me, a good VF is one of my prime requisites to the design and function of any real camera.
Its my opinion that if a manufacturer is serious about making a camera it needs a good OVF, for the people that prefer to use a live view LCD at arms-length, the modern smart phones are more than adequate at filling that sector. Look at the new Samsung Galaxy III. It even has some motor-drive type shooting capability.
My favourite camera now is the Fuji X100. The sensor size doesnt really matter because it does short depth of field quite well and its' lens is designed to match the conventional 35mm focal length. The other thing I hate about M43 is the ludicrous conversion factor...unless you buy specially designed lenses what is the point of using a legacy lens when it becomes something different entirely? Who really wants to use a Summicron after it becomes some kind of 72mm oddity?
YMMV.
Its my opinion that if a manufacturer is serious about making a camera it needs a good OVF, for the people that prefer to use a live view LCD at arms-length, the modern smart phones are more than adequate at filling that sector. Look at the new Samsung Galaxy III. It even has some motor-drive type shooting capability.
My favourite camera now is the Fuji X100. The sensor size doesnt really matter because it does short depth of field quite well and its' lens is designed to match the conventional 35mm focal length. The other thing I hate about M43 is the ludicrous conversion factor...unless you buy specially designed lenses what is the point of using a legacy lens when it becomes something different entirely? Who really wants to use a Summicron after it becomes some kind of 72mm oddity?
YMMV.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I think we'll eventually see the term 'full-frame' die away. I think the name of the game now is "How many pixels, how much dynamic range, etc., can we squeeze onto whatever sensor we can fit into this camera design." We're beginning to see 24MP cameras with sensors significantly smaller than full-frame. The Sony RX100 for example. At some point in the not-to-distant future, camera makers are going to be able to give us more pixels than we know what to do with, producing maximum image quality, with as yet unimagined software bells and whistles... all packaged into something that's elegant. And by then no one will care what the dimensions of the sensor are. My guess... no more than 5 years until we're no longer talking full-frame, m4/3, APS-C.
MikeL
Go Fish
Jamie, I guess that's the end of RFF then, cause wtf else are we going to talk about?
maddoc
... likes film again.
urban_alchemist
Well-known
My point was that it is improbable that a series compact camera such as the Leica M will sport a larger sensor than FF, simply because of all the existing glass.
However, assuming that five years down the line sensor-tech was not so prohibitively expensive, what would stop another manufacturer releasing a new line with a new mount (eg. Sony with the e-Mount, Oly/Panasonic u4/3 in the recent past), perhaps 25% larger than FF in a compact body? Instant USP.
My point is that the idea of a 35mm frame as "full frame" is an anachronism in this day and age, and that for a compact camera, it is seen as a holy-grail simply due to present cost and engineering constraints...
V-12
Well-known
Camera manufacturers are playing the game with full frame cameras. People say they need them, so they get built. And the manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank because it is relatively easy technology to develop and sell to people who aren't getting enough pixels.
But it is ultimately a dead end, because the real advances that have applications for manufacturing beyond mere cameras are taking place with smaller sensors. The new Sony sensor for the OM-D was (pro rata) a bigger technology leap than Nikon took with the D800. Likewise Olympus technology in image stabilsation is well ahead of any other competition precisely because of the smaller sensor and the roll over advantages it gives for packaging and weight. Other manufacturers are not blind to these leaps, and they won't want to be left behind, especially as they make things other than camera's.
But it is ultimately a dead end, because the real advances that have applications for manufacturing beyond mere cameras are taking place with smaller sensors. The new Sony sensor for the OM-D was (pro rata) a bigger technology leap than Nikon took with the D800. Likewise Olympus technology in image stabilsation is well ahead of any other competition precisely because of the smaller sensor and the roll over advantages it gives for packaging and weight. Other manufacturers are not blind to these leaps, and they won't want to be left behind, especially as they make things other than camera's.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Well, for me personally, FF cameras have no impact on me (other than my sizable collection of film-based FF cameras). I recently updated my u4/3 collection with a new G5. Great camera, very compact (thinner and lighter than my G1) and amazing performance, especially the new electronic shutter coupled with fast glass like the 20-1.7. I have no desire or need for FF. Compact, mirrorless cameras are the future, and I like the sweet-spot of the u4/3 format.
~Joe
~Joe
raid
Dad Photographer
The m 4/3 still has its pace. I bough an Olympus EPL1 with zoom for a trip to Cairo a few months ago for less money than what I would have pent on film plus scanning.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
We'll always have Kent's outfits to talk about!
fireblade
Vincenzo.
M 4/3 will boom.....tickets to the moon require light luggage.
dct
perpetual amateur
Olympus or Panasonic to FF?
Olympus or Panasonic to FF?
Agreed. Upraising FF mirrorless ICL cameras of any brand are not competing against the hundreds of APS-C and m4/3 mirrorless bodies. The price tag will put rather the FF DSLR market under pressure. That might be the reason why Sony is also stepping very carefully into the E-mount FF thing with a hybrid E/A-mount NEX camcorder. No NEX-9 at the horizon, no E-mount FF (wide) lenses. A FF NEX with FF E-lens setup would breach directly into the sales of the new A99 and the related alpha-mount lenses.
The same belongs to Nikon and Canon: I strongly believe they are technically able to produce a FF mirrorless ICL camera with a groving lens setup. But they fear how it could go through their milk cow DSLR turnovers: And it would!
Leica would feel the impact of a serious FF mirrorless offering too, especially regarding the new M-240 series: Not all customers are hardcore RF fans and would accept another FF mirrorless for 2/3 the costs of a Leica M.
It is up to vendors without a big DSLR market share to jump off into this new market (Fuji? Ricoh? Why not Olypmus or Panasonic?)
Olympus or Panasonic to FF?
Agreed. Upraising FF mirrorless ICL cameras of any brand are not competing against the hundreds of APS-C and m4/3 mirrorless bodies. The price tag will put rather the FF DSLR market under pressure. That might be the reason why Sony is also stepping very carefully into the E-mount FF thing with a hybrid E/A-mount NEX camcorder. No NEX-9 at the horizon, no E-mount FF (wide) lenses. A FF NEX with FF E-lens setup would breach directly into the sales of the new A99 and the related alpha-mount lenses.
The same belongs to Nikon and Canon: I strongly believe they are technically able to produce a FF mirrorless ICL camera with a groving lens setup. But they fear how it could go through their milk cow DSLR turnovers: And it would!
Leica would feel the impact of a serious FF mirrorless offering too, especially regarding the new M-240 series: Not all customers are hardcore RF fans and would accept another FF mirrorless for 2/3 the costs of a Leica M.
It is up to vendors without a big DSLR market share to jump off into this new market (Fuji? Ricoh? Why not Olypmus or Panasonic?)
nebraska
Member
Does size really make a difference?
Does size really make a difference?
I have almost reached the eighth decade of my life and seen a tremendous amount of changes in the camera industry. I am invested in several camera systems (film and digital). I probably have too much equipment. As I was getting ready for my two months upcoming trip to my home country in Europe I contemplated what to take for my photography. Should it be M9 with several lenses or my Canon 5DIII with several lenses? I lifted the respective camera bags and concluded that either system was just too cumbersome to take along. That was no issue when I traveled by car for months in the US. I decided, after doing some research, that I would look at the OM-D as a possible alternative. What I had learned from this forum and some other reading about this camera and handling it in the local camera store induced me to trade some seldom used equipment for an OM-D and several lenses. I have been astounded by the performance and image quality of this system. What really matters is the end product: the image. Does micro 4/3 have a future? I really don't know. What I do know is that I will take some impressive pictures, that my shoulder, neck and back won't kill me at the of the day. I also know that technology will continue to improve micro 4/3 sensors to the point where, for the serious photographer, the size of the sensor won't be an issue, only the image.
Does size really make a difference?
I have almost reached the eighth decade of my life and seen a tremendous amount of changes in the camera industry. I am invested in several camera systems (film and digital). I probably have too much equipment. As I was getting ready for my two months upcoming trip to my home country in Europe I contemplated what to take for my photography. Should it be M9 with several lenses or my Canon 5DIII with several lenses? I lifted the respective camera bags and concluded that either system was just too cumbersome to take along. That was no issue when I traveled by car for months in the US. I decided, after doing some research, that I would look at the OM-D as a possible alternative. What I had learned from this forum and some other reading about this camera and handling it in the local camera store induced me to trade some seldom used equipment for an OM-D and several lenses. I have been astounded by the performance and image quality of this system. What really matters is the end product: the image. Does micro 4/3 have a future? I really don't know. What I do know is that I will take some impressive pictures, that my shoulder, neck and back won't kill me at the of the day. I also know that technology will continue to improve micro 4/3 sensors to the point where, for the serious photographer, the size of the sensor won't be an issue, only the image.
kuzano
Veteran
Less than 1%.....?????
Less than 1%.....?????
Might it be safe to interject here that it could be less than 1 % of the consumer market is even aware of the FF vs APS-C/4:3 vs small sensor discussions of the desire/effect on the market???
And all of those people are on this forum, since I see the same people's names on all the other forums as well.
I think this whole thread is a lot of jabber about nothing consequential.
Wasted time. Going out shooting...
Less than 1%.....?????
Might it be safe to interject here that it could be less than 1 % of the consumer market is even aware of the FF vs APS-C/4:3 vs small sensor discussions of the desire/effect on the market???
And all of those people are on this forum, since I see the same people's names on all the other forums as well.
I think this whole thread is a lot of jabber about nothing consequential.
Wasted time. Going out shooting...
dct
perpetual amateur
YES
YES
maybe
no, I like this nonsense theoretical gear talk too
If you wouldn't mind sharing the information: Where do you come from in Europe?
Texsport
Well-known
m43 has enormous advantages for some of my activities, largely because, with less expensive legacy lenses, my range is instantly doubled, not to mention the breath of my picture taking capabilities.
I use m43 for macro, wildlife, sports, sky watching, low light tele, etc.
A few examples on my m43, I use:
Vivitar 90/2.5 macro------------------now also 180/2.5 macro on m43
Vivitar Flat Field 90-180/4.5 macro---now 180-360/4.5 macro
Vivitar 200/3.0------------------------now also 400/3.0
Nikon 55/1.2--------------------------now also 110/1.2
Nikon 135/2.0 PC---------------------now also 270/2.0 PC
Olympus OM 350/2.8-----------------now also 700/2.8
Zoomar 1000/8-----------------------now also 2000/8
The optical quality of all these lenses is also improved on m43 because I'm using the centers of the legacy lenses and eliminating the poorer quality corners on m43.
New full frame digital cameras with new digital lenses that are my current m43 equivalent focal lengths and quality would cost a fortune.
I'm not going full frame digital to replace my m43, even for AF, which I rarely use for most of my shots on full frame film cameras.
Texsport
I use m43 for macro, wildlife, sports, sky watching, low light tele, etc.
A few examples on my m43, I use:
Vivitar 90/2.5 macro------------------now also 180/2.5 macro on m43
Vivitar Flat Field 90-180/4.5 macro---now 180-360/4.5 macro
Vivitar 200/3.0------------------------now also 400/3.0
Nikon 55/1.2--------------------------now also 110/1.2
Nikon 135/2.0 PC---------------------now also 270/2.0 PC
Olympus OM 350/2.8-----------------now also 700/2.8
Zoomar 1000/8-----------------------now also 2000/8
The optical quality of all these lenses is also improved on m43 because I'm using the centers of the legacy lenses and eliminating the poorer quality corners on m43.
New full frame digital cameras with new digital lenses that are my current m43 equivalent focal lengths and quality would cost a fortune.
I'm not going full frame digital to replace my m43, even for AF, which I rarely use for most of my shots on full frame film cameras.
Texsport
denizg7
Well-known
Keith,
4/3rs is dead. SLRs will be dead too once we see professional grade mirrorless
4/3rs is dead. SLRs will be dead too once we see professional grade mirrorless
doolittle
Well-known
m4/3 entices me with its promise of high quality and high portability. For any travel that involves airlines, bigger cameras are now a non-starter for most of us. Nowadays I tend to travel with film RF cameras. I don't shoot a huge amount of frames, so I find it easier carrying rolls of film rather than chargers and back up accessories.
What am I losing and what am I gaining by going for a m4/3 system?
Changing ISO on the fly is a gain. However I imagine the smaller sensor makes taking shallow depth of field shots trickier.
Is the m4/3 system more a replacement for the point and shoot, a supplementary camera system for travelling light, or is it more versatile than that? Are they suited to wild life photography, especially with the crop factor, or is it a battle with limitations inherent in the system?
Intrigued,
David
What am I losing and what am I gaining by going for a m4/3 system?
Changing ISO on the fly is a gain. However I imagine the smaller sensor makes taking shallow depth of field shots trickier.
Is the m4/3 system more a replacement for the point and shoot, a supplementary camera system for travelling light, or is it more versatile than that? Are they suited to wild life photography, especially with the crop factor, or is it a battle with limitations inherent in the system?
Intrigued,
David
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
And what does Sony think of it? Given that Sony rather than Panasonic are now investing in Olympus (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/25/sony_investment_olympus/) that might be far more relevant than user opinion or even market success.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
History tells that eventually (rather soon than late) Olympus will suddenly stop their production of M4/3 cameras, just like they did with Pen, OM and recently 4/3 cameras. I love their lenses and I own both OMs and 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) which I have no plan to sell as they get fine pictures despite their small sensor and probably thanks to the specifically designed lenses, but at Olympus they have this bad habit and that's why I avoided altogether their M4/3 cameras and will stay away from whatever they are going to produce in the future. They make nice microscopes though...
GLF
GLF