More speculation on the future of M43

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,588
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
First, he should do a little research because a m4/3 25mm f/.95 lens does exist.

Second, as long as he keeps his talking to shorter focal lengths he can make a decent argument but it all goes out the window when you start talking about telephoto lenses.

He talks about sensor tech and how it’s immaterial because ff sensors will have the same tech. Which is true. But show me a FF camera that has all the capabilities of my EM1x like pro capture and live composite or the ability to shoot 60fps.
Precisely. I dabbled with a Z7 last year. It wasn’t until I tried to get to 200mm equiv that I realised the size, weight, and cost of FF spiralled up significantly.
 

BPCS

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
191
Some inaccuracies... f0.9 lens doesn't exist... not according my f0.8 Voigtlander 29mm Super Nokton.
A 25mm Pro f1.2 and other super fast lenses need to be stopped down to f2.8 to be sharp... nope.
A 50mm f2.8 FF lens gathers the same light as a 25mm f1.4 m43 lens... its actually the sensor area gathering a total of more light that makes them equivalent... f1.4 is f1.4 is f1.4.
He doesn't mention that a f1.4 m43 lens for action shooting will give a shutter speed that a FF f2.8 lens will require 2 stops higher ISO and neutralise the FF advantage.
He doesn't mention that a FF lens will need to be stopped down 2 stops more to get a minimum DOF for say group portraits and again neutralise the advantage.
He should have left it at saying that "bigger is better for image quality" is easier to market successfully than "smaller is good enough for image quality".
It all sounds like somebody trying to talk themselves into why their choice was correct... sounds just like m43 fans in reverse but FF fans always claim the higher ground somehow. As if there is no chance m43 can get a look in... instead of granting m43 some areas of advantage or "good enough" or parity for other reasons. Its their way or the highway... or the "wake" they persist in predicting. Oh the arrogance of saying an alternative system just deserves to die. Meanwhile, creators with modern mobile phones are producing stunning images... as always, its the tool behind the camera that matters most. Not measurebators poring over 300% crops of images.
 

RichardC

Pastafarian minister
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
5,018
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
Some inaccuracies... f0.9 lens doesn't exist... not according my f0.8 Voigtlander 29mm Super Nokton.
A 25mm Pro f1.2 and other super fast lenses need to be stopped down to f2.8 to be sharp... nope.
A 50mm f2.8 FF lens gathers the same light as a 25mm f1.4 m43 lens... its actually the sensor area gathering a total of more light that makes them equivalent... f1.4 is f1.4 is f1.4.
He doesn't mention that a f1.4 m43 lens for action shooting will give a shutter speed that a FF f2.8 lens will require 2 stops higher ISO and neutralise the FF advantage.
He doesn't mention that a FF lens will need to be stopped down 2 stops more to get a minimum DOF for say group portraits and again neutralise the advantage.
He should have left it at saying that "bigger is better for image quality" is easier to market successfully than "smaller is good enough for image quality".
It all sounds like somebody trying to talk themselves into why their choice was correct... sounds just like m43 fans in reverse but FF fans always claim the higher ground somehow. As if there is no chance m43 can get a look in... instead of granting m43 some areas of advantage or "good enough" or parity for other reasons. Its their way or the highway... or the "wake" they persist in predicting. Oh the arrogance of saying an alternative system just deserves to die. Meanwhile, creators with modern mobile phones are producing stunning images... as always, its the tool behind the camera that matters most. Not measurebators poring over 300% crops of images.
Other than that, his assessment is mostly correct :rofl:
 

failsafe

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
18
I try to stay away from political discussions and camera arguments. I have a M4/3 system (GX1), including my new Lumix GX-9, as well as Nikon and a Leica Q. I have been lots of places with my M4/3 and have taken thousands of pictures. I basically learned how to use it, and in my case, it works for me. Tell you what, I will be in Hawaii in December, and will take only one camera system, yes the M4/3 group will be on the plane. In this case, portability trumps additional weight and size.
 
Last edited:

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,236
Location
Tanagra (not really)
He’s overlooked the fact that if you want FF mirrorless with a similar feature set to an EM1 Mk2 then you are looking at 4-5x the cost. Then there are the lenses.

A Z9 would be lovely but I will never be able to afford to buy two of them and six equivalent lenses.
I agree. While M43 has a great advantage in absolute smallness, I’m perfectly happy with the extra weight of the G9 and PL lenses. When I hear what some spend on FF gear, especially a bazooka zoom, it’s a substantial reminder that while my setup has limits, those limits must be overcome with lots of money. I mean, halfway to a brand new minivan type of money. I got kids to feed!
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
169
I agree. While M43 has a great advantage in absolute smallness, I’m perfectly happy with the extra weight of the G9 and PL lenses. When I hear what some spend on FF gear, especially a bazooka zoom, it’s a substantial reminder that while my setup has limits, those limits must be overcome with lots of money. I mean, halfway to a brand new minivan type of money. I got kids to feed!
Kids or no kids, the argument is much simpler.
Does your photographic equipment support your livelihood? If yes, then it is sensible to invest as much as necessary to ensure that it can.
If no, it makes sense to invest only what you can spare if that increases your satisfaction or happiness somehow.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,430
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Mike Johnston says that M43 is a lame duck. What do you think?
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2021/11/controversy.html

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if M43 is considered a lame duck. I figure that replacing what I have with another camera system/sensor format would cost me $12,000+. I can't afford that, and I don't want to carry a system with bigger, heavier bodies and lenses. My M43 system has always had far more capability than my meager abilities have been able to make use of. I jokingly said before that they'll have to pry my M43 camera out of my cold, dead hands, but at my advancing age, that's becoming more likely. :)

If one tried to get the best camera for every photographic niche, one could end up with many cameras, lenses, and various sensors. I don't need that nor can I afford it. I'm fine with a very good system that fulfills many needs. Doesn't have to be the best at everything.

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good." - Voltaire
 
Last edited:

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,745
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Mike Johnston says that M43 is a lame duck. What do you think?
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2021/11/controversy.html

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if M43 is considered a lame duck. I figure that replacing what I have with another camera system/sensor format would cost me $12,000+. I can't afford that, and I don't want to carry a system with bigger, heavier bodies and lenses. My M43 system has always had far more capability than my meager abilities have been able to make use of. I jokingly said before that they'll have to pry my M43 camera out of my cold, dead hands, but at my advancing age, that's becoming more like reality. :)

I've recently been looking at a Nikon Z6ii, to use to shoot night and gym games, where m4/3 struggles.
But $2k, for the camera + $1k for a 24-120/4 = $3k.
I really don't think so.
I'll keep using the APS-C D7200, for the low light stuff.
And m4/3 for everything else.

edit, to fix the 12-120 -> 24-120.
 
Last edited:

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,236
Location
Tanagra (not really)
There are those that are trying make a living selling photographs taken with their cameras, and then there are those trying to make a living convincing people what camera to buy. Both put food on the table, but the more I look at people that review gadgets for a living, the more depressed they sound with each passing year. It’s especially true in tech, where “something better” is always another release away, and they always find something bad to say about a product. Sometimes, the frustration is certainly legitimate. It can be fun setting up a new gadget, until you’ve had to do it 100 times. I’m beginning to think that ignorance might indeed be bliss. :D
 

SteveNunez

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
608
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Steve Nunez
My biggest gripe with m4/3 is with the cameras being 'behind' in terms of features and effectiveness when compared to present camera systems. I have been a m4/3 user from the very beginning with a Panasonic G1 until now, which I currently shoot with several including an EM1X. The problem I see is the AF is behind other systems- it simply isn't as good as other cameras (my Canon R6 locks on BIF and other subjects much more effectively than my EM1X- it's just what it is.) Also you have Olympus and Panasonic as the only 2 real players in the stills format and Olympus is now OM of which has shown no real camera (other than that teaser- delayed releases don't inspire consumer confidence and buyers don't typically like waiting and will jump to other systems)....and because Olympus has sold that division and digital camera sales way down due to the cell-phones how much growth can OM really expect in the dwindling market- will we really see a full lineup- very unsure times: what would convince new buyers to buy into m4/3? You also have one of the initial main draws to m4/3 being negated due to FF compact cameras and the desirability of the FF bokeh, low lux capabilities, dynamic range etc: the m4/3 small form factor draw is diminished with it's only true draw being the smaller tele lenses.
I think m4/3 cameras should be the 'innovators' in the camera industry- they should simply offer features not found in other cameras- this would help them survive and possibly flourish. For instance, it would have been great if m4/3 cameras were the first to offer global shutters in the advanced models (look at the reaction to the Nikon Z9.) They should offer an incredible cell phone integration experience with great UI for immediate file sharing on social media or to FTP servers etc with editing software to match- not the plain apps used today. Create apps that allow users to tailor camera settings from an app and save settings- fully integrate with phones, tablets etc. The LCD screens should be much larger have improved wifi and bluetooth capabilities...there's room to make serious improvements to the UI- hire advanced Ux/Ui teams and focus on industry leading innovations- that would help them keep on the forefront and keep buyers looking to m4/3 for the new innovations without following the current trends FF and APSC cameras trudge on. As long as Pan and OM source their sensors from Sony they'll always be behind FF offerings- they have to take sensor design in house. They should cater to the 'creative' who makes tik-toks and YouTube videos as this is the future of media consumption- there are allot of ways to get into this but if m4/3 continues to battle FF cameras of similar size then I see eventual demise as it's eventuality.
I see m4/3 as leading in the tele side of the market (due to smaller lens size/heft) then they should consider making even longer lenses and continue to develop AF tracking performance this could keep them in the game for wildlife and sports shooters and keep the format alive in that market segment.

I know- allot of dreaming but if m4/3 were the class for innovation I think it would have a great chance for keeping the format future friendly and enticing for new buyers.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,236
Location
Tanagra (not really)
I see m4/3 as leading in the tele side of the market (due to smaller lens size/heft) then they should consider making even longer lenses and continue to develop AF tracking performance this could keep them in the game for wildlife and sports shooters and keep the format alive in that market segment.
I’m not sure how much longer they might want to go, as 800mme is pretty narrow already, but perhaps maybe faster lenses would help hold that advantage? I wonder what a 100-400 F4 would be like in terms of size and cost. The 150-400 pro is close, but it also adds a TC inside. The PL100-400 weights considerably more than the meager O75-300ii, but it’s not all that much longer when both are collapsed and with forward-facing hoods on them.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,795
Location
Massachusetts, USA
But $2k, for the camera [Nikon Z6ii] + $1k for a 12-120/4 = $3k.
I really don't think so.?
I assume you mean a Nikon 24-120mm?

Unfortunately Olympus prices have always been high and those prices are not too far off say the E-M.3 + 12-100/4 which with the current sale is still ~$2700. When not on sale then you are at $3100.

The E-M1.3 with the 12-45 PRO instead will still be $2050 on sale and $2450 list price.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,696
From Andrew Smallman in his Camera Ergonomics blog:

Why the Micro Four Thirds system will fail 6 November 2021


He hangs his analysis primarily on the "equivalence" argument.

A few selected quotes:




Disclaimer: my sharing this post does not imply my agreement with this blahger's arguments.

- K
If you hadn't made a post about that click baiting oxygen thief and posted a link, no one would have known a thing about his ramblings, m4/3 users would have happily continued using their gear, and the world would roll along just like normal.

Edit -I must make a correction. I see a whole 2 replies to his post, however, reading them I'd say that one poster is not an m4/3 users, never has been, and has no intention of ever doing so.
 
Last edited:

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
2,236
Location
Tanagra (not really)
If you hadn't made a post about that click baiting oxygen thief and posted a link, no one would have known a thing about his ramblings, m4/3 users would have happily continued using their gear, and the world would roll along just like normal.

Edit -I must make a correction. I see a whole 2 replies to his post, however, reading them I'd say that one poster is not an m4/3 users, never has been, and has no intention of ever doing so.
I often don’t click the links, since these days clicks equals encouragement. I’ll let the poster cliffs notes it for me. ;)
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,696
I often don’t click the links, since these days clicks equals encouragement.
Indeed. It took me a while to summon up the courage, but I decided it would be better if I read the drivel before commenting. I have long since learned to ignore anything related to a certain you tube click baiter with the initials T N. I even feel generous capatilising his initials
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,719
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
If you hadn't made a post about that click baiting oxygen thief and posted a link, no one would have known a thing about his ramblings, m4/3 users would have happily continued using their gear, and the world would roll along just like normal.

Edit -I must make a correction. I see a whole 2 replies to his post, however, reading them I'd say that one poster is not an m4/3 users, never has been, and has no intention of ever doing so.
I read that drivel.

My sister in law has an FZ300. The IQ of her images varies from good to lousy.

It is a mark of that reviewer's competency (or lack thereof ... ) that he thinks it compares with mFTs. My 14 y.o. E-510 and kit lenses absolutely slaughter the FZ300, as does my 18 y.o., 5 MPx E-1 ...

That photo he so proudly displays can be taken with any modern ILC. Perhaps he is surprised because the latest Canon can now do so ...
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
703
Location
Canada
Camera users are an insecure group, trying way too hard to justify their choice of equipment by promoting their own and denigrating that of others. And it's not just full frame users but also Micro Four Thirds users, like those who criticize the Olympus 8-25mm F4 by saying that there is no point to wide angle lenses because multiple photos can be stitched together. I probably won't buy the 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 but I don't need to justify it by saying that telephoto lenses shouldn't exist because images can be cropped in post-processing. All of photography and the camera industry doesn't need to revolve all around me, and I wouldn't want it to either. More choices are better, even if they are not for me.
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
964
Location
Springfield, Illinois
Overall, I'm not sure I care all that much if m43s survives. At my age, I care more about my own long-term survival! :cloud-9-039: (We need an Angel emoji)

But should m43s go belly up before my. . . departure, I will continue to take pictures with m43s until it needs replacing, and then I will buy whatever meets my needs at the time. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't as important as some other stuff going on in the world.

Don't panic, it's only gear, it isn't even photography, it's just gear.
 

ivanbae07

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
116
Location
BKL, ID
Real Name
I.B.
well... that's not new, still the same old song from the small sensor nay sayer... is he really afraid of small sensor or been paid to do it?

but, still. there's no 25mm 0.9 for m43. but, well, there are some 25mm 0.95 (some even quite cheap) and one or two 0.8 lens (voigt 29mm and a longer fl from a brand that i don't remember).

and yeah, (some) m43 gears gradually getting bigger (looking at g9 and that latest 100-400mm).

if he need a new song, he could shout about "the unavailability of a native rectilinear prime uwa lens with af", still stuck at 14mm efl, and no one wants to fill that 9-13mm rectilinear lens (just because the widest lens on ff was that laowa 9mm)...
 

Latest threads

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom