Northrup and M43 - "Normal" buying cycle

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Hi all,

I watched another video with Tony Northrup, whose views I respect, but disagree with when it comes to M43 -- namely, I don't think it's dead.

I think where he errs, frankly, is in tying the future of a platform with new items, specifically lenses coming out. I know in my case that my equipment set is close to complete for how I'm using my camera for the foreseeable future. I've got the kit lens, 12-40mm Pro, 45mm/f1.8 prime, 40-150 (regular telephoto), and an OM-system Macro. If anything, I might get another prime, or a nicer telephoto (but not the Olympus 40-150mm Pro -- I favor light). I have a used OM-D E-M1 Mk II to replace my Mk I coming.

Point is, I don't see me making a whole bunch more purchases in the near future, and I suspect that there will be people like me that will be happy with the existing lenses out there, and those people wouldn't necessarily be accounted for in Northrup's numbers. Since Olympus doesn't depend on the imaging division to stay afloat, I think they can support the platform indefinitely.

I'm just curious if others feel similarly. I just think as long as there are bodies out there that are lighter than FF and produce great pictures, there's no reason in particular to think anything will happen to M43 any time soon...

Dion

 

[AussiePhil]

Dion,
Firstly let me agree that if your happy with your gear then there’s little to force an update.

However I couldn’t be bothered to interrupt good tennis viewing to watch a TN video that even on your generous description sounds like another clickbait vid on “m43 is dying”
I’ll watch it later when I edit some more images.

Considering there are still a large cadre of happy 4/3 camera users it likely wouldn’t matter if m43 stopped tomorrow.

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Oh I apologize if I came across as recommending someone watch a video. The "M43 is dead" thread from a while back dealt with the rather infamous one. This one I saw was about camera formats in general, and M43 was only a brief mention.

What I appreciate about his videos is he tries to make his points rather empirically, so just curious if my experience is the norm. Even if M43 "died" (whatever that means anyway), I'm going to be satisfied with the equipment I have. For bodies, I've strictly bought used up to this point anyway. I just don't know that new products is necessarily a good indicator of the life of a platform.

Enjoy your tennis I'm more of an American college football guy, and the new season doesn't start for a few months yet

 

[DrNuy]

I'm just curious if others feel similarly. I just think as long as there are bodies out there that are lighter than FF and produce great pictures, there's no reason in particular to think anything will happen to M43 any time soon...

Hi,
I feel similarly, too.
Almost the same equipment as yours, except a (bargain) Zuiko 50-200 instead of the 40-150.
I hope that this format will live : just worried about the bodies lifespan, be they longer than mine...

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Hi,
I feel similarly, too.
Almost the same equipment as yours, except a (bargain) Zuiko 50-200 instead of the 40-150.
I hope that this format will live : just worried about the bodies lifespan, be they longer than mine...

You bring up a great point. That would be the worst case scenario, because if no one makes bodies, eventually we would have to switch. And M43 lenses wouldn't adapt well to FF frames (unlike the other direction). Fortunately, Olympus seems to be the perfect company for this concern - since they're not dependent on the imagery company to stay profitable, they should be able to keep making new bodies...

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Oh and that doesn't seem to be a bad lens! f/2.8-3.5 is better than the 4-5.6 I get with mine. And it seems more compact and reasonably priced (used) than the Pro model...

Funny thing is I shot pictures from a basketball game the other day. My buddy with all the uber-pro ginormous full-frame camera set up was stuck at ISO 2500/f2.8. I used my 45mm/f1.8 prime and was getting ISO 600 I think.

 

[AussiePhil]

Oh and that doesn't seem to be a bad lens! f/2.8-3.5 is better than the 4-5.6 I get with mine. And it seems more compact and reasonably priced (used) than the Pro model...

Funny thing is I shot pictures from a basketball game the other day. My buddy with all the uber-pro ginormous full-frame camera set up was stuck at ISO 2500/f2.8. I used my 45mm/f1.8 prime and was getting ISO 600 I think.

The old 4/3 50-200 is actually bigger and extends when zoomed so ultimately longer than the 40-150pro
I own both, IQ is close with the edge to the 40-150pro however focus speed etc are are no contest win to the Pro lens.
Take the hood off the 40-150Pro and on the mk1/mk2 it’s relatively compact

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

The old 4/3 50-200 is actually bigger and extends when zoomed so ultimately longer than the 40-150pro
I own both, IQ is close with the edge to the 40-150pro however focus speed etc are are no contest win to the Pro lens.
Take the hood off the 40-150Pro and on the mk1/mk2 it’s relatively compact

Oh I missed that was 4/3 That's like any adapted lens, no autofocus right? That'd be a show stopper for me. I use my telephoto for things like birds and wildlife. But you're right, it just looks small. Both are about two pounds My 40-150 non-pro is a quarter that... If it was just a bit faster....

 

[AussiePhil]

Oh I missed that was 4/3 That's like any adapted lens, no autofocus right? That'd be a show stopped for me. I use my telephoto for things like birds and wildlife. But you're right, it just looks small. Both are about two pounds My 40-150 non-pro is a quarter that... If it was just a bit faster....

Adapted 4/3 glass especially on the em1 series Auto Focus works just fine, just not as lightening quick as the Pro lens

 

[jyc860923]

The thing is, even if m43 die right now, according to your description you're not likely going to be affected in the near future.

A system as matured as m43 doesn't just die because of some fancy new cameras getting released; and I have to disagree with you because you said Olympus can "support the platform indefinitely", they will pull the plug if there's no benefits to be made.

Everything dies, my point is m43 won't die the way Nikon 1 series and Samsung NX did because those systems didn't actually grow up; When m43 exits it's going to be a longer process, during which period the gears can still be useful, I think it's the same for DSLRs and film cameras.

Tony said in an earlier video that when they kill the product line usually there's no official deadline, like FT and Sony alpha mount they are technically not killed.

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Adapted 4/3 glass especially on the em1 series Auto Focus works just fine, just not as lightening quick as the Pro lens

Oh that's good to know! That's my challenge with the OM Macro I have... I love 2x magnification for ~$150, but not very easy to shoot with

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

The thing is, even if m43 die right now, according to your description you're not likely going to be affected in the near future.

A system as matured as m43 doesn't just die because of some fancy new cameras getting released; and I have to disagree with you because you said Olympus can "support the platform indefinitely", they will pull the plug if there's no benefits to be made.

Everything dies, my point is m43 won't die the way Nikon 1 series and Samsung NX did because those systems didn't actually grow up; When m43 exits it's going to be a longer process, during which period the gears can still be useful, I think it's the same for DSLRs and film cameras.

Tony said in an earlier video that when they kill the product line usually there's no official deadline, like FT and Sony alpha mount they are technically not killed.

Yeah, I thought that was a great perspective, and not just cameras too. I remember when the Nintendo Switch was announced Nintendo specifically said it wasn't replacing the 3DS, but well...

On Olympus, I think there's a difference between can and will though. My main point is simply that their medical company is SO much more profitable that it's a different pressure than Canon and Nikon. I heard from some place that imaging is essentially an R&D source. I agree that if there's no benefit to be made they'll move to something different (e.g. 4/3 to M43). I just don't think that benefit is strictly sales.

But mostly I agree... M43 is a mature platform, so it'll be different than what other companies face, like Canon going directly against Sony in mirrorless...

 

[DrNuy]

The old 4/3 50-200 is actually bigger and extends when zoomed so ultimately longer than the 40-150pro
I own both, IQ is close with the edge to the 40-150pro however focus speed etc are are no contest win to the Pro lens.
Take the hood off the 40-150Pro and on the mk1/mk2 it’s relatively compact

My 50-200, Pro and "SWD", was bought second-hand the same day I acquired the E-M1 MkII body, a large expense by itself...
Less compact than the 75-300, of course, but what a quality difference !

 

[AlterKnabe]

You bring up a great point. That would be the worst case scenario, because if no one makes bodies, eventually we would have to switch. And M43 lenses wouldn't adapt well to FF frames (unlike the other direction). Fortunately, Olympus seems to be the perfect company for this concern - since they're not dependent on the imagery company to stay profitable, they should be able to keep making new bodies...

And I am feeling reassured, since Olympus (I like the brand since the wonderful OM-1) isn't the only manufacturer of m43. Besides my Olympus E-M5II and Pen-F I am using a Panasonic GX80, and judging from speeches of Panasonic officials their G-Series will become continued, additional to their (great) FF-Models.

 

[ac12]

Funny thing is I shot pictures from a basketball game the other day. My buddy with all the uber-pro ginormous full-frame camera set up was stuck at ISO 2500/f2.8. I used my 45mm/f1.8 prime and was getting ISO 600 I think.

That is the way to work.
The lenses are like tools in the tool box.
So like a good mechanic, you select the best tool for the job and the situation.

When I shoot in the dim gym, I ditch my zooms for the FAST primes.
The trade-off is zoom flexibility vs. large aperture. The large aperture gets me down from ISO 12800 to 3200.

Although ISO 2500 is a perfectly acceptable ISO level to shoot at.
In the dim gym, I shoot at ISO 3200, f/2, 1/800 sec.

 

[Saledolce]

Let me be clear before I write the next sentence. I love m43, I'm heavily invested into it and I'm investing more: I recently added a 12-100, a GX800 and 3 lumix pancakes.
I'm _that_ kind of an m43 fan. Oh, and I would not wish a TN video to my worse enemy.

But.

Saying that a system is not dead because the stuff we have will keep working, or because we mostly have what we love to shoot, is not correct. A system with no growth, no innovation (new bodies, lenses, sensor, AF ...) would not be a system in good health.

I shoot my Olympus OM1, I love my Zuiko OM glass (and I'm looking for a decently priced 85mm) but I would not define it alive.

 

[CO_yeti]

Honestly I think we might see a renewed interest in m43 and APS-C shortly. FF day in the sun is quickly coming to an end as very usable medium format systems are now here. If the logic is sensor size matters than top professionals in wedding/portrait/family/fashion/real estate/landscape have to switch to keep booking clients. That leaves the rest of us that are OK with 'good enough' IQ. All of a sudden the FF size and weight and price doesn't make sense and is in a weird in between space.

Fuji has the best strategy in the industry right now with APS-C and MF. Panasonic, Sony, Canon, Nikon really don't have enough different between their crop sensors and FF IQ, IMHO. Olympus might be smart to only play in one space. Also FF video doesn't work other than large cinema cameras.

 

[ac12]

Saying that a system is not dead because the stuff we have will keep working, or because we mostly have what we love to shoot, is not correct. A system with no growth, no innovation (new bodies, lenses, sensor, AF ...) would not be a system in good health.

I shoot my Olympus OM1, I love my Zuiko OM glass (and I'm looking for a decently priced 85mm) but I would not define it alive.

More the camera than the lens. As camera technology moves much faster than lens technology.

Once you have a fleshed out lens landscape, all you have left is replace the old with new models, incremental models, and bring out niche lenses.

• Example1 the 12-200 is an incremental zoom range improvement over the 14-150. It could be argued that they did not have anything else to make. Or it is marketing one-upping the Panasonic 14-140, as the O-14-150 was too close.
• Example2, the pro primes are coming out now, cuz the standard primes are done.
• Example3, the 150-400 pro zoom is a niche lens, if only for the expected price. My guess is over $5k.

The other issue is that you NEED to keep the engineering alive. Once that goes stagnent, and you loose the engineers, restarting will be difficult.

This is something that many companies who downsize don't understand when they do an "across the board" 10% cut. Yes they are saving salary cost now, but they are also killing future products, and affecting their ability to compete next year and longer.

This is a controversial subject with DoD spending.
They have to keep their defense contractors alive, or they may shut down, and we loose that design and manufacturing capability to a potential advisary. Think China.​

 

[SamoyedPapa]

Back in 2012, Thom Hogan wrote about the Last Camera Syndrome; the idea that camera technology may have reached a point where the current camera was good enough for most non-professionals. I thought my Last Camera was the original Canon 5D when it was introduced as the first reasonably priced FF camera, and that was a revelation. I added a 40D to handle action and wildlife, and stopped paying attention to new cameras for the next decade. That's when the size and quality of the micro four thirds gear re-ignited my interest in camera gear, as I wanted something more compact and lightweight to reduce the burden on my aging body. With the G9 and GX7, I think I now have my Last Cameras, at least until the next time that a camera company introduces a product that currently doesn't exist, and which I didn't know I needed.

 

[Dion Houston Sr.]

Saying that a system is not dead because the stuff we have will keep working, or because we mostly have what we love to shoot, is not correct. A system with no growth, no innovation (new bodies, lenses, sensor, AF ...) would not be a system in good health.

I shoot my Olympus OM1, I love my Zuiko OM glass (and I'm looking for a decently priced 85mm) but I would not define it alive.

Excellent point. And I think probably the only reason that SLRs (not DSLRs) are not as prominently used any longer is the fact that film is comparatively difficult to get now. And actually, that may be what ultimately "kills" current camera systems. A limiting factor of every one I know of is SD-Cards. A new form of media that provides significant advantage might do it...