'Micro 4/3 is the Big Kahuna' at The Online Photographer

goldenlight

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
Essex
Real Name
John
Richard... yes. It's looking like m4/3 is "just right" for a lot of applications and your analogy is right on.



Jonathan... it would be awesome if Canon bettered Sony and pulled off an APS-C system with smaller (and more) lenses than Sony has. Who knows... they could create a new sensor size somewhere between APS-C and m4/3 and apply their considerable engineering prowess and financial resources to such an endeavor and simply SMOKE in the compact mirrorless segment. If they're visionary, they might willingly sacrifice their current entry-level APS-C segment at the altar of the future.

Competition for m4/3 is a very good thing. I think Nikon tripped on it's sword. I had hoped it too would have been a NEX killer with better lens options. But at present, that's not to be. Their sacrifice of IQ for smaller size lost me from the get go. But they may do very well with the amateur P&S segment who thinks their small interchangeable lens system is a big deal.

I'm very happy with m4/3 and increasingly so with every new lens and body release, but do look with interest toward forthcoming Canon and Nikon mirrorless systems. So far, anyway, m4/3 continues to be a smashing home run in the mirrorless segment.
Why does everyone assume Nikon and Canon will dominate the mirrorless market if they produce cameras with similar size sensors? They dominate the DSLR market simply because they got there first. Maybe they realize that they're already too far behind Olympus and Panasonic in this new market to make up lost ground, hence the need for creative new sensor sizes. Sony have already proven that APS-C doesn't work in this division by virtue of the lenses being too big. I think :43: is proving to be a real thorn in the side to the two "big" players.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
Jonathan... it would be awesome if Canon bettered Sony and pulled off an APS-C system with smaller (and more) lenses than Sony has. Who knows... they could create a new sensor size somewhere between APS-C and m4/3 and apply their considerable engineering prowess and financial resources to such an endeavor and simply SMOKE in the compact mirrorless segment. If they're visionary, they might willingly sacrifice their current entry-level APS-C segment at the altar of the future.
To be honest, I don't know what Nikon was thinking? It sucks too, because I'm a heavily invested Nikon DSLR shooter and I would of easily stayed with Nikon, had their mirrorless solution matched or exceeded micro four-thirds as a system. In fact there are a lot of Canon/Nikon shooters like me, who use m43 as a complimentary kit to their main kit. While I may still give the 1 system a try, they really made it less appealing by making it a 2.7x sized sensor. Micro 4/3rds really seems to be the ideal sweet spot for size, performance and versatility. Not to mention the best lens line-up right now. That's why I didn't bother with the NEX, I already have a DSLR full-frame kit, m43 is my small setup.
 

DHart

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
3,568
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Real Name
Don
Micro 4/3rds really seems to be the ideal sweet spot for size, performance and versatility. Not to mention the best lens line-up right now. That's why I didn't bother with the NEX, I already have a DSLR full-frame kit, m43 is my small setup.
Yep, same story for me. In fact, I still need to sell my medium format film gear! :rolleyes:

Wouldn't it be awesome if Canon and Nikon decided to join the consortium and produce m4/3 gear as well! Can you imagine what an amazing format m4/3 would be if we also had Canon and Nikon m4/3 bodies and lenses to choose from?.... what a dream format that would be! Fat chance, unfortunately. :frown:
 

Marcula

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
29
Location
Surrey, UK
I have an EOS - m4/3 adaptor, but seldom use any of my Canon lenses on the GF1 - for the simple reason that m4/3 is all about portability, and I see it as complementary to a DSLR set-up.

I think John's right - Canikon are a bit too late to the m4/3 party... so if they want a slice, then how about just developing good glass for m4/3? I'm sure camera bodies are a much more lucrative income stream for them due to new features, upgradeitis and GAS, but the growing m4/3 userbase I'm sure would appreciate a broader range of lenses, and not ANOTHER 'small' standard.
 

goldenlight

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
Essex
Real Name
John
To be honest, I don't know what Nikon was thinking? It sucks too, because I'm a heavily invested Nikon DSLR shooter and I would of easily stayed with Nikon, had their mirrorless solution matched or exceeded micro four-thirds as a system. In fact there are a lot of Canon/Nikon shooters like me, who use m43 as a complimentary kit to their main kit. While I may still give the 1 system a try, they really made it less appealing by making it a 2.7x sized sensor. Micro 4/3rds really seems to be the ideal sweet spot for size, performance and versatility. Not to mention the best lens line-up right now. That's why I didn't bother with the NEX, I already have a DSLR full-frame kit, m43 is my small setup.
That's precisely the strength of Micro 4/3 and in some ways it would be logical for Nikon and Canon to join the standard. Nikon in particular cannot argue that 4/3 is too small, having just produced the N1. The reason they won't, of course, is because Olympus and Panasonic are already too established. Nikon and Canon would simply be providing new bodies on which to fit Olympus and Panasonic lenses!

I think Nikon and Canon users will have to accept that there is unlikely to be a serious micro system on which to use their existing lenses for the forseeable future. They will be better off running micr 4/3 as a second system. However, that doesn't mean the new Nikon format won't be successful; I think it will, but to an entirely different market and type of user than what the Nikon faithful were hoping and expecting.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
That's precisely the strength of Micro 4/3 and in some ways it would be logical for Nikon and Canon to join the standard. Nikon in particular cannot argue that 4/3 is too small, having just produced the N1. The reason they won't, of course, is because Olympus and Panasonic are already too established. Nikon and Canon would simply be providing new bodies on which to fit Olympus and Panasonic lenses!

I think Nikon and Canon users will have to accept that there is unlikely to be a serious micro system on which to use their existing lenses for the forseeable future. They will be better off running micr 4/3 as a second system. However, that doesn't mean the new Nikon format won't be successful; I think it will, but to an entirely different market and type of user than what the Nikon faithful were hoping and expecting.
Nikon should of went m4/3rds, just built lenses and they'd probably profit more than spending all that R&D for the 1 system! :rolleyes:
 

MajorMagee

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Messages
1,632
Location
Dayton, OH
I think perhaps everyone is missing that the real future market for cameras is China's middle class and not here with the traditional consumers of the west. The paradigm is different and the products will be different as well. While it may seem like a bad move for Nikon from our perspective, I bet it makes perfect sense in that market.
 

Grant

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
388
Location
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada
Before we bury Nikon and their "1" lets step back. Remember all the gnashing of teeth when Panasonic introduce their "dummy down" GF2 and later GF3. While I never abandoned the GF1 there are countless others that don't share my views and Panasonic seems to be moving forward very well … thank you! It seems we are the choir and there is a lot of preaching going on, but what of the rest of the photographic consumer world?

On paper if I were after a video camera that would double up as a still camera then the Nikon 1 looks like a very viable choice.
 

JoepLX3

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
509
Location
Japan
IMHO (as expected) a disappointing introduction of Nikon to the mirrorless camera system.
- Only the brand name itself might help them (and reduce the pain in their DSLR business)

I would go for the Panasonic GFX1 (Mu43 pro - L1-look-a-like), especially in combination with some killing non-plastic lenses...

(Oh, for now I stick to my LX3 + K-x)
 

John M Flores

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,988
Location
NJ
Why does everyone assume Nikon and Canon will dominate the mirrorless market if they produce cameras with similar size sensors?
Canon and Nikon are restricted by their existing dSLR business. There's a lot of risks....

- if they try to replace their entry level dSLRs with mirrorless offerings but they don't sell as well.

- if they offer a mirrorless that cannibalizes dSLR sales at lower profit margins

- if they don't do anything and other brands start to steal dSLR sales

- if they enter mirrorless too late and others have competitive advantages (i.e., more comprehensive body and lens lineups, more advanced 2nd and 3rd generation technologies, etc...)

I think the 1 is Nikon's effort to manage all of the above risks. Pentax's Q is similarly compromised. Panasonic, Sony and Olympus have fewer restriction and thus have been able to be more innovative.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I think the 1 is Nikon's effort to manage all of the above risks. Pentax's Q is similarly compromised. Panasonic, Sony and Olympus have fewer restriction and thus have been able to be more innovative.
I don't know about Olympus having fewer restrictions...it looks like standard 4/3rds took a major hit!

I don't think the Nikon 1 system is that bad. It'll probably do well to be quite honest. I think Nikon would rather play third fiddle (To m43 & NEX) in mirrorless and have a presence then no presence at all, while still focusing on their DSLR line.
 

Ned

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
5,538
Location
Alberta, Canada
I don't know about Olympus having fewer restrictions...it looks like standard 4/3rds took a major hit!
That's true. Four-Thirds lost both the entry-level as well as mid-range out of their DSLR lineup, leaving only a pro and supposedly semi-pro lineup. That's a major hit to sales, but Olympus planning sees the Four-Thirds and Micro Four-Thirds lines as the same system. I just hope their accounting department can see it in the same light!
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
That's true. Four-Thirds lost both the entry-level as well as mid-range out of their DSLR lineup, leaving only a pro and supposedly semi-pro lineup. That's a major hit to sales, but Olympus planning sees the Four-Thirds and Micro Four-Thirds lines as the same system. I just hope their accounting department can see it in the same light!
Olympus really needs to find a way to leverage their standard 4/3rd line to integrate smoothly into m4/3rds. I think for most m4/3 users mindset, standard 4/3rds is as foreign as any other camera brand lens line-up. Panasonic on the other hand can go full steam with no baggage.
 

DHart

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
3,568
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Real Name
Don
I think for most m4/3 users mindset, standard 4/3rds is as foreign as any other camera brand lens line-up. Panasonic on the other hand can go full steam with no baggage.
This is true. In fact as as avid m4/3 shooter now with a lot of m4/3 gear, I still see 4/3 as foreign and obscure. I would never have considered 4/3 as an alternative to full frame gear (5DMkII).

It was only when m4/3 entered the scene (for me the appearance of the GF1 with the 20mm lens) that I saw an appealing option, as a smaller alternative, to use when I didn't need the capabilities of the full frame sensor. In fact until coming to this forum, I didn't know of anyone who used 4/3 gear. It seemed like a quite obscure wildcat format to me. I can't see 4/3 achieving any sort of widespread adoption, whereas m4/3 offers a truly compelling reason to Canikon shooters to add a smaller system or to switch to the smaller format, if it's capabilities are up to their imaging needs. I wouldn't be surprised if 4/3 gradually fades into obscurity.
 

Ned

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
5,538
Location
Alberta, Canada
Olympus really needs to find a way to leverage their standard 4/3rd line to integrate smoothly into m4/3rds. I think for most m4/3 users mindset, standard 4/3rds is as foreign as any other camera brand lens line-up. Panasonic on the other hand can go full steam with no baggage.
If there were better AF adaptability for Four-Thirds lenses with Micro Four-Thirds bodies, then I think that would be a major leap with integrating the two lines.

Both Sony and Nikon have now come up with their solutions using hybrid PDAF/CDAF systems... Nikon in the body itself, and Sony in the adapter. Maybe we'll see something like this for Olympus as well soon?

Four-Thirds lenses still comprises the entire pro-lineup of the digital Olympus brand. This is extremely important to both Four-Thirds and Micro Four-Thirds systems.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
If Olympus had started micro four-thirds from the get go, they'd be in such a better place right now. Honestly m43 to me, met the intended goals of the format. Standard 4/3rds was always just a passing curiosity to me and many photographers I've talked to. The only way I could see Olympus saving itself, would be to make a Pro PEN that takes over the reigns of the SLR style 4/3 cameras, while still being compatible with micro four thirds. If they were to abandon the entire line, they'd be committing corporate suicide...no one would trust such a company. It'd be better they piss off a couple harcore 4/3 users by abandoning their mirrored cameras and introduce mirrorless replacements, than lose their entire lens line-up.
 

Ned

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
5,538
Location
Alberta, Canada
This is true. In fact as as avid m4/3 shooter now with a lot of m4/3 gear, I still see 4/3 as foreign and obscure. I would never have considered 4/3 as an alternative to full frame gear (5DMkII).

It was only when m4/3 entered the scene that I saw a reasonable option, as a smaller alternative, to use when I wasn't shooting full frame. In fact until coming to this forum, I didn't know of anyone who used 4/3 gear. It seemed like a quite obscure wildcat format to me. I can't see 4/3 achieving any sort of widespread adoption, whereas m4/3 offers a truly compelling reason to Canikon shooters to add a smaller system or to switch to the smaller format, if it's capabilities are up to their imaging needs. I wouldn't be surprised if 4/3 gradually fades into obscurity.
I'm sorry Don, but having never used the pro Olympus system (in digital) you don't understand the advantages it carries. Yes, very few people used it and it's not expected that you would know any other Four-Thirds photographers, but this is because of the much smaller marketing of the Olympus brand, not because it lacks imaging capabilities. Those who do use the pro Four-Thirds gear often won't use anything else, and many of them are hesitant to even try Micro Four-Thirds because they love their Four-Thirds gear that much. There is no need for Four-Thirds to "fade into obscurity", but it is not attempting to gain "widespread adoption" either. It has always been targeted to a niche market and now being pro-grade only is targeting an even more niche market. The much greater awareness of the brand through Micro Four-Thirds only strengthens that position which Four-Thirds has. If it didn't fade into obscurity on its own, then why would it now with the backing of Micro Four-Thirds to the brand?

The real strong supporters of the Four-Thirds system were always the handful of pro users who invested in E-3 and E-5 bodies with Super High Grade glass like the 300mm f/2.8, 90-250mm f/2.8, 150mm f/2, 35-100mm f/2, 14-35mm f/2, and 7-14mm f/4. This has not changed, and many of those users are still using the same equipment although there are a handful who actually sold off all that expensive gear to go completely Micro Four-Thirds. Always with a feeling of separation and regret, mind you. :rofl:

The entry-level was there to support the pro market by increasing sales and awareness. Micro Four-Thirds has taken over that role, and is actually doing so MUCH better than entry-level Four-Thirds bodies could ever do. The brand awareness of Olympus has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels now (still far behind Canon and Nikon, mind you), probably better than the days of the OM system. I don't see how increased brand awareness is supposed to kill off the pro lineup. It only increases the need for more and better pro gear.
 

Ned

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
5,538
Location
Alberta, Canada
If Olympus had started micro four-thirds from the get go, they'd be in such a better place right now. Honestly m43 to me, met the intended goals of the format. Standard 4/3rds was always just a passing curiosity to me and many photographers I've talked to. The only way I could see Olympus saving itself, would be to make a Pro PEN that takes over the reigns of the SLR style 4/3 cameras, while still being compatible with micro four thirds. If they were to abandon the entire line, they'd be committing corporate suicide...no one would trust such a company. It'd be better they piss off a couple harcore 4/3 users by abandoning their mirrored cameras and introduce mirrorless replacements, than lose their entire lens line-up.
Well, I don't totally disagree with you but Four-Thirds is an established system at the moment. To replace the entire Four-Thirds lens lineup with Micro Four-Thirds equivalents would be an impossible task to complete within years, and would be incredibly expensive! Olympus does not have such deep pockets, and in fact are struggling to stay in the black. A pro PEN would be awesome, but it wouldn't have the same fast performance with the existing pro glass that the E-5 does. What use is a pro body without pro glass?

Maybe this would be a possibility... far down the road. For now at least, I think we need to support the Four-Thirds system in order to retain that pro quality glass, weather sealed bodies, and support from the pro market.

A quicker solution might be however... a pro PEN with weather sealed body, and a weather sealed Four-Thirds mount adapter (yes, the weather sealing is important since all high-grade Four-Thirds lenses are sealed) with PDAF chip inside ala Sony style. That wouldn't take over the Four-Thirds system, but it would really bridge the gap!!
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,027
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I'm sorry Don, but having never used the pro Olympus system (in digital) you don't understand the advantages it carries. Yes, very few people used it and it's not expected that you would know any other Four-Thirds photographers, but this is because of the much smaller marketing of the Olympus brand, not because it lacks imaging capabilities. Those who do use the pro Four-Thirds gear often won't use anything else, and many of them are hesitant to even try Micro Four-Thirds because they love their Four-Thirds gear that much. There is no need for Four-Thirds to "fade into obscurity", but it is not attempting to gain "widespread adoption" either. It has always been targeted to a niche market and now being pro-grade only is targeting an even more niche market. The much greater awareness of the brand through Micro Four-Thirds only strengthens that position which Four-Thirds has. If it didn't fade into obscurity on its own, then why would it now with the backing of Micro Four-Thirds to the brand?

The real strong supporters of the Four-Thirds system were always the handful of pro users who invested in E-3 and E-5 bodies with Super High Grade glass like the 300mm f/2.8, 90-250mm f/2.8, 150mm f/2, 35-100mm f/2, 14-35mm f/2, and 7-14mm f/4. This has not changed, and many of those users are still using the same equipment although there are a handful who actually sold off all that expensive gear to go completely Micro Four-Thirds. Always with a feeling of separation and regret, mind you. :rofl:

The entry-level was there to support the pro market by increasing sales and awareness. Micro Four-Thirds has taken over that role, and is actually doing so MUCH better than entry-level Four-Thirds bodies could ever do. The brand awareness of Olympus has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels now (still far behind Canon and Nikon, mind you), probably better than the days of the OM system. I don't see how increased brand awareness is supposed to kill off the pro lineup. It only increases the need for more and better pro gear.
The problem though with Olympus, is how they can translate micro four thirds sales into standard four thirds? Nikon and Canon can easily translate entry level sales by users upgrading without ever switching lens mounts. They have a huge catalog of pro glass not selling, hence a pro Pen could be the bridge.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom