Nikon 4/3 m4/3 coming in April

[~tc~]

I doubt the porn industry has as much interest in still cameras as they did in video though.

 

[photoSmart42]

The new question will become:

Did we purchase the BetaMax of new mirror-less cameras?

Perhaps, but it doesn't matter if it works for you right now. History will be written on the m4/3 format in its own time. Technology improves and adapts with the market, so it's impossible to know what the landscape for mirrorless cameras will look like in ten years. I suspect m4/3 cameras will still be around by then.

 

[Ray Sachs]

Did we purchase the BetaMax of new mirror-less cameras?

For the younger folks, A great format for video tape which died on the vine at Sony..

Perhaps, but it shouldn't matter quite as much. Its not like the powers that be will stop making great photographs for us to play/take on our m43 cameras! But, yeah, parts could get hard to find...

-Ray

 

[soundimageplus]

Did we purchase the BetaMax of new mirror-less cameras?

Well BetaMax was the professional system of choice for television around the world, and superior in quality to VHS which "won" the domestic battle, due to many reasons that had nothing to do with which was the better system.

Though certainly Panasonic with their distribution "black hole" in the US seem to be doing everything they can to put themselves at a disadvantage to their rivals.

 

[Narnian]

But also physics dictates better technical quality with larger sensors. Larger pixels means more light and better ISO sensitivity and EV range and less noise. Technological improvements will also help larger sensors as well. But, as pointed out, at a size cost.

But how many people need that? Here in the US we suffer through "bigger is always better" and we are inundated with SUVs and off-road vehicles people never took off-road. This translates to TVs, cameras and other devices.

90% of the people I know who own Nikons and Canons bought them for snapshots and will never really see the benefits of owning a camera larger than a good point and shoot, much less m43. And the reasons they gave me for buying them were:

1. Name recognition
2. It is what the pros use so it must take good pictures
3. Bigger must be better

None had seen or heard of the Panasonic G series and only a few knew of the Olympus series. Neither is marketing here in the US very well.

On the bright side the pros and advanced amateurs I know ooh and aah over my GF1. One I know who was going to buy an M9 for a knockabout camera said he may buy the GF2 now instead with the 20 and 14 after seeing my GF1.

On the other hand the real amateur and newbie dSLR owners I know have sometimes asked if it was a real camera (at least twice).

 

[Bill Gordon]

can't read blue on grey...

Nor can I read it!!

 

[BrianK]

Remembering that im just a guy that really knows zip about cameras, photography or the industry but hey after some zipping around the interwebs like any other Yahoo my thoughts are...... : )

No way Nikon or Canon go M43, but of course both will have a mirrorless SLR type and prosumer product like sony and samsung. One can only hope they jump in hard enough.

The next five years will be interesting as new tech literally lays waste to the "traditional" DSLR market, maybe even the pro DSLR market.

I am not worried about m43's future really, it seems to have some serious momentum for now, enough anyway get thru the next few years , then who knows, but Im sure it will be cool. : )

As John mentioned they can go a few ways, if they try to save the DSLR's I think they will have a near death experience, maybe not Canon, BUT Canon did so well last year that it might not have desire or feel the need to change, the past few years have shown many that relying on cash cows is foolish.
Canon : Investor Relations | Presentation Material

Of course I could also be full of well ya know.

BK : )

 

[John M Flores]

Yes very true. Panasonic and Olympus do seem tied to the 4/3 size sensor, while others can go to other sizes. Both Sony and Nikon have experience of larger sensors.



Well, I'm no scientist but the Leica M9 is full frame and there are some very small lenses for that camera, though they are all manual. However for APS-C Pentax have some small AF pancake lenses. The K-5 is a very small body and that has the standard mirror box. Take that out, use lighter materials and you have a very small, light system. Fast lenses aren't necessarily a problem either. The Pentax 43mm f/1.9 limited is fast, small and is a lens designed for film, therefore could cover a full-frame sensor.

True about Leica lenses and Pentax lenses as well. The thing that makes them anachronisms though in these modern times is the fact that they are primes. For better or for worse, we live in a zoom world. Some pros and serious enthusiasts may favor primes, but nearly all those people with entry-level dSLRs at your local tourist trap are sporting zooms. On more than one occasion I've had to explain to a budding new dSLR owner what a prime lens was ("...no, this is not a lens cap...It's called a pancake because it's so small... It's a prime...No, it doesn't zoom...)

With this in mind, I would posit that the the sensor size that provided greater IQ than point & shoots while using smaller-than-a-dSLR zooms will succeed. They don't have to be fast F2.8 zooms either, as steadily improving high-ISO capabilities will make F3.5 and F4.0 zooms more usable indoors.

Thus Sony is barking up a strange tree with their NEX, as the zooms eliminate nearly all the benefits of the slim body.

There's talk of Pentax introducing an EVIL with a sensor even smaller than M43. I imagine that part of the goal is to make the system size (camera + lenses) smaller still. The challenge that I see here is that DOF control will be even harder to achieve with smaller sensors, which may turn off more advanced enthusiasts.

In my month with the GH2, I've experienced an interesting phenomena. When paired with the 14-140, I feel like I have a superzoom camera on steroids. Nearly everything in the frame ends up in focus. This may be useful and familiar to the person stepping up from a point-and-shoot, and useful to me under certain circumstance, but there are other times when I want some DOF. With the GH2, that's as easy as taking off the 14-140 and putting on the 20 1.7. Thus, M43 has this interesting dual nature - as easy to use as a point-and-shoot with the zooms while offering some advanced creative control with the primes.

Maybe, just maybe, Panasonic and Olympus have already found the sweet spot with M43. I sure hope so, and that other smaller brands like Pentax and Ricoh et. al. come aboard. The M43 standard, after all, is the closest thing the industry has to an open standard, and I'd much rather have the brands competing purely on the merits of their products instead of creating proprietary, locked-in situations that raise switching cost and keep customer embedded in systems far longer than they might otherwise. Yes, Canon, Nikon, and Sony, I'm talking to you...

 

[drpump]

Thus Sony is barking up a strange tree with their NEX, as the zooms eliminate nearly all the benefits of the slim body.

+1. I can't understand why people are buying them. Perhaps the video capabilities and low-noise sensor are making up for lack of lenses, bloated size of lenses and lack of tactile controls.

I'd much rather have the brands competing purely on the merits of their products instead of creating proprietary, locked-in situations

Their marketing departments will never let that happen .

 

[Luckypenguin]

Maybe, just maybe, Panasonic and Olympus have already found the sweet spot with M43. I sure hope so, and that other smaller brands like Pentax and Ricoh et. al. come aboard. The M43 standard, after all, is the closest thing the industry has to an open standard, and I'd much rather have the brands competing purely on the merits of their products instead of creating proprietary, locked-in situations that raise switching cost and keep customer embedded in systems far longer than they might otherwise. Yes, Canon, Nikon, and Sony, I'm talking to you...

While the idea of an open standard is brilliant for the consumer, I do wonder if it is of benefit to Olympus and Panasonic from a business perspective. Simplifying things greatly, Nikon sells of a lenses because they sell a lot of camera bodies. Canon sells a lot of lenses because they sell a lot of camera bodies. In the case of Panasonic and Olympus, selling a camera body doesn't guarantee a lifetime's worth of sales of bespoke lenses and accessories.

Any other manufacturer that chooses to join the m4/3 standard has to ensure they are VERY competitive with their direct oppostion to ensure continuous sales of lenses and other accessories to a consumer. From that point of view there is a good case for other manufacturers to not join m4/3.

 

[flash]

While the idea of an open standard is brilliant for the consumer, I do wonder if it is of benefit to Olympus and Panasonic from a business perspective. Simplifying things greatly, Nikon sells of a lenses because they sell a lot of camera bodies. Canon sells a lot of lenses because they sell a lot of camera bodies. In the case of Panasonic and Olympus, selling a camera body doesn't guarantee a lifetime's worth of sales of bespoke lenses and accessories.

Any other manufacturer that chooses to join the m4/3 standard has to ensure they are VERY competitive with their direct oppostion to ensure continuous sales of lenses and other accessories to a consumer. From that point of view there is a good case for other manufacturers to not join m4/3.

And it doesn't with Canon or Nikon either. Sigma, Tokina and Tamron make dozens of compatible lenses. There's probably more brand choice of lenses in Canon and Nikon than there is in m4/3 (excluding legacy MF glass). There's also the benefit of being able to sell lenses to the owners of the other camera. i have both Olympus and Panny lenses for my Pen cameras. that's benifited both Panasonic and Olympus. I'm sure that many owners have "cross pollinated" lens ownership between the current 4/3 players.

Gordon

 

[Gillymaru]

I think the entry of new players into the micro 4/3 market will keep both Olympus and Panasonic on their toes and ensure future lens development is of a higher standard.
No one will buy lenses from a manufacturer if you can get a better quality one at the same price point. Case in point, how many owners have the 20 mm Panasonic lens in lieu of the Olympus 17 mm?
I wonder if Olympus would have built a better optical quality 17 mm lens if they had known how good the Panasonic 20mm would prove to be?
It will be interesting to compare the quality of the next two Olympus offerings, the wide and the macro to see if they are comparable to the Panasonic versions. I am hoping they will be better quality and Olympus has learnt from it's past mistake.

 

[Luckypenguin]

So there's no such thing as brand snobbery involved with buying equipment from big name OEM's compared to third-party lens manufacturers?

 

[Gillymaru]

So there's no such thing as brand snobbery involved with buying equipment from big name OEM's compared to third-party lens manufacturers?

If K-mart were to manufacture great lenses they would happily find a place on my camera
I think one of the great things about the micro 4/3 system is that we can use a variety of lenses all the way from cheap C mount TV lenses through to $10,000 Leicas.
It all comes back to the price point, comparing lenses of similar cost against each other.

 

[Luckypenguin]

I think the entry of new players into the micro 4/3 market will keep both Olympus and Panasonic on their toes and ensure future lens development is of a higher standard.
No one will buy lenses from a manufacturer if you can get a better quality one at the same price point. Case in point, how many owners have the 20 mm Panasonic lens in lieu of the Olympus 17 mm?
I wonder if Olympus would have built a better optical quality 17 mm lens if they had known how good the Panasonic 20mm would prove to be?
It will be interesting to compare the quality of the next two Olympus offerings, the wide and the macro to see if they are comparable to the Panasonic versions. I am hoping they will be better quality and Olympus has learnt from it's past mistake.

Actually that was the point I was trying to make. If Pentax for instance came into m4/3 with lenses that competed head-on with the existing offerings at the same price point they had better be as good or better because m4/3 gives you the opportunity to chop and change. Once you have sold a consumer a m4/3 camera body you don't virtually guarantee yourself accessory sales because you currently have two high profile OEM's competing head-to-head. I think there is more onus on any manufacturer competing within an open standard to provide better product because it is easier to switch loyalties.

 

[PeterB666]

No way Nikon or Canon go M43, but of course both will have a mirrorless SLR type and prosumer product like sony and samsung. One can only hope they jump in hard enough.

Agree. There would be no sense in either Nikon or Canon going to FT or MFT sized sensors. Quite frankly, you can pack a 1.5x or 1.6x crop sensors in a similar sized package to the 2x crop factor sensors. Sony have already shown this.

Canon make their own 1.6x crop sensors so are unliky to start fabricating another format.

It makes no sense for Nikon to use anything other than a 1.5x crop sensor either.

I don't pay a huge amount of interest in the developments on Canon's product line but rumours about a Nikon mirrorless camera have been around from well before the Olympus E-P1 hit the market. It they had not been sitting on the fence (development wise), I may have well gone down that route. Here is hoping for a new Nikon 'rangefinder' but at an affordable price.

 

[soundimageplus]

Canon make their own 1.6x crop sensors so are unliky to start fabricating another format.......
I don't pay a huge amount of interest in the developments on Canon's product line ......

Todays Canon announcements probably indicate their priorities. What they do they do well, and its difficult to criticise something like the 600D for what it does and the price it will sell for. They would argue that its small, light and relatively inexpensive. I used a 550D and it was tremendous value. They obviously operate an "If it ain't broke...... etc" policy.

However they do seem to have stalled on what they can squeeze onto an APS-C sensor. No increase on the 18MP. It will be interesting to see if Sony are about to overtake them on sensor technology with their rumoured 24/25MP APS-C sensor for the ??A77 and ??NEX-7. I certainly have no complaints about their 16MP sensor I'm using in a Pentax K-5. Its superb, and terrific at high ISO's.

If Sony can pull that off and a NEX-7 appears with a 24MP sensor that does the job, then that could be hard to resist. Can Panasonic respond to something like that? Since Nikon use a lot of Sony sensors, either as manufactured or with their own tweaks, we could see m4/3 reaching its limit.
Do Panasonic / Olympus then abandon it and start a new range with a bigger sensor or settle back into an advanced compact camera scenario?

It is probably a good time to be a camera consumer. I'm not so sure it's a good time to be a camera manufacturer.

 

[PeterB666]

I am not sure if you realise it or not, but the more pixels you squeeze onto a sensor, the crappier the low light performance. That's why the current crop of 1/1.7" sensor advanced compact cameras have stepped back from 14mp and are now all 10mp.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't want a 25mp APS-C sensor and am quite happy with the 12mp APS-C one in my "other" camera, the Nikon D90. The pixel war is one for the marketing department and the uneducated mass-consumer.

 

[DHart]

Yes, lets hope the megapixel wars die a sudden death... we need better pixels in the little cameras, not more of them.

 

[Narnian]

The closest analogy with m4/3 in my mind would be Pentax. Several manufacturers built upon the M42 and K mounts. Heck I used to own a J.C. Penny 135mm lens in a K mount.

Pentax and several manufacturers seemed to do well with that approach in the past - there was more competition but it also increased the market share.