View Full Version : Micro 4/3 - storm in a teacup ?
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.
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.
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 mańana, RFF. Sweet dreams.
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.
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.
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
08-24-2009, 07:03
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
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.
I believe m4/3 is a sneaky little bātard. 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.
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
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. :D
Tuolumne
08-24-2009, 15:43
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
08-24-2009, 15:44
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. :D
If you can't tell the difference, then it doesn't matter.
/T
As long as it's in the lens and it truly doesn't make a difference, yeah. I guess.
I think the following iso 1600 image may end the discussion, and it's even not done with a prime, just the kit zoom
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/3856290759_17b99a0b28_o.jpg
For further data about it, after you finnish your tea, you can go to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30387493@N08/3856290759/
count_zero
08-25-2009, 12:20
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
08-25-2009, 12:27
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.
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
08-25-2009, 13:56
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...
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.
I only see a smaller form factor system like m4/3 getting better and more full-featured. The question is whether Olympus & Panasonic have enough of a lead to stay ahead of C-N long enough to establish their market share. This may be something like Sony losing with Beta, but winning with BluRay, eg Pen/half frame lost in film, but may win for compact digi. All Olympus needs is an E-P2 with viewfinder and one or two fast wide primes.
Frank Petronio
08-25-2009, 17:58
Most of my recent photos have been with the G1 and kit lens and I am anxiously awaiting that 20/1.7 prime. The image quality out of the G1 is almost on par with my old Nikon D300 and frankly I now prefer the G1 viewfinder and LCD to the APS SLR-sized viewfinders. It is great to be able to use the LCD with my recent nearsightedness too.
It would be sweet if Panasonic made a G1 with a larger form factor for bigger hands, it is just a little on the small side. Toss in some more metal and weather-sealing, a higer res LCD, and double battery compartments... and sell it for twice as much and it would still have a market.
I've loved my Nikons but Panasonic got so many things right with the G1 and the compact LX series that they've won a lot of brand loyalty from me -- I think they actually talk to photographers, like the designers of the Ricoh GR series (and the designers of the Sigma DP didn't!)
Over on the GetDPi forum it looks like a lot of early adopters are unloading their EP-1s -- but you don't see many used G1s.
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.
I disagree with all the assumptions here.
What Canon may like to adopt or not, has nothing to do with the fact that at the hands of Panasonic and Olympus superb mini dslrs, which will continue to challenge any dslr camera on the field of size and weight. Dslrs will shrink with time, no doubt, but at the same time micro 4/3 will be improving too. The mirror-less dslr is a full revolution in camera design.
But the o.p. has went very wrong in my opingion by comparing single lens cameras with exchanging lens cameras - even before we start to talk about sensor size.
The Panasonic Gi is a cornerstone for a new breed of cameras. Panasonic may like or be able to further develope it, and if not the G1 will remain a cult camera for years to come. Certainly there are things to improve within the G1 - yet all of them on the reach of hand, more or less. The most important of all concerning the manipulation of RAW images. Then this mirror-less camera must be absolutely silent, and, of course, a wider line of primes is to be hoped for.
On the other hand the Olympus old Pen myth and new fancy version in nothing but an excuse to gain time in order to make a final decision to end the 4/3 system, with which they are too involved unlike Panasonic, and concentrate on the Micro 4/3 - or loose both markets to Panasonic.
However, the GRD III and the S90 ? a tea cup.
Cheers,
Ruben
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.
I would hope so.
But the modern DSLR has attracted a different sort of character to the amateur market. They are the ones with a photo backpack, two DLSR's around their neck with different zoom lenses, a pouch for a filter system, a monopod, and a photo vest, and a far away look with the sun catching the underside of their chin, all to photograph a canal boat on a club day out. They also have the ability to pixel peep when back at base,.. but lets not look at the photo.
I'm not saying it didn't happen with film, but display amongst photographers is a key area that Canon in particular have worked on with digital. They are not alone in an age where things can be made smaller, consider the size of Rolex watches from the 1930s to today. So if Canon can bring themselves to make cameras smaller, perhaps photographers will need something new to show how serious they are, maybe gaudy feathers, because tribal display is what its all about.
Steve
Pherdinand
08-26-2009, 00:36
that's exactly the discussion i had 15 mins ago with a colleague of mine. He's an enthousiast nikon dslr user and we were wondering why on earth the "pro" dslr bodies are so freaking large. We even googled it but no answer to be found in that digital pollution called "internet camera forums":)
I came up with the idea, maybe they are made larger than they should be to distinguish the "pro" from the "amateur".
.............
Over on the GetDPi forum it looks like a lot of early adopters are unloading their EP-1s -- but you don't see many used G1s.
At this very moment I went there for a g1 body, and of course I saw none. But the Micro 4/3 subforum at the moment I was there had the most active members there, 24.
Prices of the G1 went higher during the last weeks by 30%.
Cheers,
Ruben
No price change here in the US, but still no bodies for sale anywhere, only kits.
I checked again and you are right. There were several weeks in which for some reason there was no kit below $750, now the lowest priced is by $600, and still no body only.
I see no future in DSLRs except professional applications.
Four Thirds is sufficient for most photographers, and Micro 4/3 is the most intelligent approach.
In the next couple of years they will outlast prosumer DSLRs in function, size and weight.
If Canon jumps onto the train, this likely will happen soon.
If a No.1 in the market is't clever in leaving the sinking ship (DSLRs for mass market) and investing in new fields it will lose its leading position or be kicked out. This is what history teaches. For Nikon it's even more important, because Nikon is the next to lose autonomy if they don't increase clever acting in the market.
Personally, I NEVER liked DSLRs, and will never like it. I have about 50 film SLRs but never had a DSLR and will never buy. I see no sense and no future in this concept.
Micro 4/3 is the more intelligent concept. Closer to RF too.
Tempest in a teacup.
I always heard it as Tempest in a Teapot. But that's neither here nor there.
Fascinating discussion thus far. For my pie-in-the-sky input...
I'm interested in Micro 4/3 for two reasons: miniaturization and innovation. The miniaturization is in some ways essential, and the reason the whole thing has life. While cameras now are smaller than ever, most of them also aren't very good, especially for the sophisticated user. One of the primary reasons the Leica M has endured is because many people don't like big cameras. So this format steals what allows that to be the case: mirrorless design. This step "backward" allows for cameras to be extremely small without sacrificing image quality, and live view allows framing (whether via LCD or EVF) to be just as precise as a DSLR. On those grounds alone, these mirrorless formats stand to inherit much of the rangefinder faithful (those drawn primarily by the small size of the gear).
The innovation, though, is where the excitement is. Look, for example, at the GH1 and rumored GF1. Here you have two cameras with ostensibly the same specs, same sensor, etc. On one hand you have SLR ergonomics, on the other you have rangefinder-y ergonomics. Same set of lenses for both. One could easily own both and grab the right tool for the job as needed (I think some of you already do this with the G1 and E-P1). Imagine a Panasonic prosumer camcorder, with camcorder ergonomics, sharing the same set of lenses. Now let your mind run wild, imagining other camera bodies... I'm partial to imagining a Hasselblad 500C/M-type affair with a small cube-shaped body and a high-res waistlevel LCD viewfinder. But more than any of these, I want to see the camera that looks and feels like no camera ever has, made possible only with this new format. In a world where image quality is plateauing and many people now have (or soon will have) a camera that meets all of their needs in terms of quality, how do you continue to sell bodies? One way, useful for photo enthusiasts, is to offer a different shooting experience with each one. That way, users collect a system of lenses and bodies, all interchangable with one another, each purchase adding something for the user but also increasing their investment in the system. Makes good business sense.
And of course the "out-of-the-box" thinking has already borne fruit for users, as the GH1 (and the GF1, if rumors can be trusted) has its multi-aspect sensor, allowing users to shoot in full-resolution in 3 different aspect ratios. That's impossible with a mirrored camera, and calls to mind the X-Pan. I can't wait to see more of that.
As for Canon and Nikon, my hopes for them are entirely unreasonable, but they are as follows: Use either the Canon 7 or Nikon S heritage like Olympus did with the Pen, devise a mirrorless APS format, and do something really unexpected that the competition can't match. I think either could get alot of play by limiting their focal lengths and including a zooming optical viewfinder, something along the lines of a digital Contax G series. Include an LCD for more extreme lengths or so users can choose their method of composition, and launch with a zoom and three primes that directly correspond to classic focal lengths: A 16mm, 24mm, and 33mm for Nikon DX, for example. I don't think it'll happen, and I don't necessarily think it would make good business sense. But I do think Canon and Nikon need to get into this market, and that if they don't do something big, unpredictable, and outside of what the specs for Micro 4/3 allows, they'll always play second fiddle to Panasonic or Olympus (both of which, by the way, cannot dominate this market; my money's on Panasonic).
That or they should get to market by Photokina with something very much like the E-P1, but with an EVF and multiple primes available on day one. I suppose that would do it too.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.