hi there, i have a small m4/3 setup, i have the gf1 with the 20mm and a nissin di466 flash to go with it. i was thinking of adding a 14-45 zoom to my set up. while the pancake 20mm is great, there are times when using a zoom lens is more appropriate than a prime. i guess what's holding me back is that i'm worried that the system isn't here to stay, and investing more in it would not be a wise move. m4/3 lenses are expensive. since sony is able to put apsc size sensor in a very compact nex, i cant help but think that panasonic and olympus would follow and start putting bigger sensors in compact bodies and just drop the m4/3 system. there are also rumors about canon releasing their own MILC. do anyone here think this is likely? or am i just worrying about nothing?
Olympus never attempted to put a larger sensor in their pro DSLR bodies (E1, E3, E5), I don't see why they would change for mirrorless. I think the samples from the new GH2 show the improvements that have been made to the m4/3 sensors. Is the Sony NEX any better for having a bigger sensor?
M4/3 is not going anywhere but up. There's no other system like it. It will continue to grow, slowly but grow. Jump in, everyone else did. Shooter
I have read the test report on the Sony pancake, that alone would stop me buying the Sony. Unlike the Panasonics which offer a lot of correction the Sony does not and purple fringing is a problem, and sharpness is not that clever. If you are not a high ISO fan then any of the G1 GH1 GF1 series are fine, or for extreme high ISO then the new GH2 is superb from the photos that I have seen. Cannot find anything in Sony or Sammy to tempt me away from µ4/3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/panasonic-kei/
What he said ... and I'd like to also point out the obvious * Cameras are not an investment. * Even if the system did start to "slow" down, its not like the current stuff you already have stops taking pictures. * Switching systems isn't cheap either. * The want for something different or better later down the road is driven by "want" not "need". Its easier just to accept it and go with the flow.
The golden rule! If you want to buy something, it's GOLD. When you sell it, it's crap... I can't use the real word!
btw... Canon rumor has been floating around for a long time now. I personally don't feel it will ever happen.. no more viable than Nikon reviving their Rangefinder line in digital flavor. * DSLR line is where they make money. Its already crowded lineup * Not much market room between the Gseries and lower end Rebel. In both value, features, and size. * It would require a new line of lenses. Awful high investment with no guarantee of return. * EF lenses are big.... Adaptation to a mirror-less camera wouldn't be ideal nor practical. Yes.. .it would be easier to answer your question with a crystal ball but that just doesn't happen. Enjoy what you have and upgrade or move on to another system if you feel that the current no longer fits "you".
It would appear that M4/3 has solid momentum. Initial GH2 results look good too. The introduction of other cameras with a large sensor in a small body (e.g. NEX) is a good thing in my view. More choice, plus some useful pressure on Panasonic and Olympus to keep improving. The Fujian X100 will help too. So from a commercial perspective I feel the format is here to stay for the forseeable future. Perhaps the more immediate questions are around your photographic needs. The GF1 is not just another camera. It really is very good - but is it good for you? Does it allow you to make the photos you want to make, and does it have what you need to push your limits and explore new territory? Is it frustrating you in any way? Are you reaching photographic limits that a new camera or system would resolve? It's perfectly fine to move or add gear when you need to, or if you are an avid gear collector. My input is to carefully think through the 'need' bit, putting your photography first. Collection is another thing entirely...
I remember I read from an interview with the Olympus CEO talking about the Micro 4/3 system will be here to stay for a long time compared to the 4/3 system... Anyway, whatever happens, the Micro 4/3 system will still be a great system to use for making photos.
People I know in retail tell me that m43 is selling well. I don't think that the format has peaked yet, sales wise. Lots of mileage yet. All the best, Colin
When Canon introduced the EOS system they lost a huge following of FD system users because only a few lenses in their vast range were able to be adapted to EOS with a very expensive adaptor. The few photographers that I knew moved over to Nikon and the odd one to Hassleblad. I bought into M43 so as to use my legacy FD and Leica R lenses and I am well pleased. I could be wrong but I think Canon is unique in alienating all its previous system users. Olympus has always been a good corporate citizen and created an advancement path for its new products so the history would suggest that buying into M43 probably has a reasonably safe future...
Personally, I feel M4/3 is here to stay and is probably a biased opinion. 2 of world's fastest lens (Noktor and Nokton) are available in native mount on M4/3. Lensbaby is too. There are so many 3rd party accessories for M4/3 cameras in that it is no longer funny. Your lens can be used on so many bodies from Olympus and Panasonic. There are probably 100+ lens that can be mounted on M4/3 with the right adapters including Canon EOS. Wow. But it depends on which photography genre(s) you are interested in.
There are rules of physics that technological advances can only overcome at the margins. And one of those is that larger sensors mean larger lenses for the same basic tasks. Hence, you have microscopic Sony Nex bodies with enormous lenses. And you have larger full frame DSLR bodies with even larger lenses. Tiny compacts, even really good ones like the S95 and LX5, have tiny lenses and tiny sensors, which are incredibly good for a lot of things, but make getting any sort of narrow DOF shots all but impossible. To me, m43 is a perfect compromise size. The sensor is small enough to be able to use relatively small lenses but large enough to be able to get decent narrow DOF effects. Small enough to carry, large enough to handle. And since sensor technology is getting better and better and better, the differences in image quality between small sensors and larger ones is getting less and less significant every year. So, in that sense, m43 sensors are plenty big enough for very very good IQ today and will only get better. If you like the format today, no reason not to invest in some lenses. If you don't, then it probably doesn't represent the best combination of tradeoffs for you as a photographer. -Ray
I asked myself the same question last spring when I started looking to move up from my P&S. Canon and Nikon were the obvious choices. But I was always a bit "different" in my tastes having gone Pentax and medium format the last 35 years. I happened upon an E-PL1 in a local store and fell in love - I had not even considered the 4/3 format. Well, almost immediately. I bought a GF1 later. But I wondered if the format would do well, would there be good lenses to choose from, etc. The only issue I have is that it is not as widely used here in the US. The problem is not the camera but US buyers - I believe we are too "brand" conscious - and many Americans believe bigger is better. Put a Canon or Nikon next to the Oly or Panny and people think they are getting more for their money. However the camera is doing much better elsewhere so I felt comfortable jumping in with both feet. It is not going away. I am very happy and am looking to "invest" even more with a nice wide zoom.
As it has been said before cameras are not an investment. If you are a professional they are overhead. If you are a collector they are speculation. They are only investments when it comes to justify a purchase. Here is my take one it. If you like the system you have, I you know you will get enough use out of it, if you can comfortably afford it, then don't fret you can justify owning it. For me I like the µ43s system, I do use it enough and it I can afford it but ... My equipment is working equipment in the sense I don't baby it and it will get beat up so I figure I must take the whole hit on the purchase. Here is how I justify my purchases. I still take images as if I were using film, I am a frugal shooter. While it is not the case, I still think that every time I click the shutter it cost 25¢. When I purchase a piece of equipment I take the cost and divide it by the 25¢. This gives my the number of pictures I must shoot to justify the expenditure. I ask say will I really shoot this many images with this piece of equipment in say three years. If the answer is yes then I have justified my purchase. I have the 14-45 and I don't use it as much as I expected but in the end it will have been used it over 1500 times so its cost has been justified. Your milages may vary. For those that want to know in four months I will have meet my justification goal with my µ43s system
I just have to jump in here and have my say or should I say, add to the Pro of the argument. I have owned many cameras, many systems over the years and as it has already been said, you buy into a system and it is great so long as you stay there but when you change horses, then you sometimes are starting all over again. I started in the digital age with a Nikon Coolpix 950...then the 995...until one day I saw the Olympus E-10 and that started me off in another direction. Next was the E-20, E-1, E-3 with several lenses by now and I then realized that the bigger the system the more you carry around with you and by this time I realized that the camera was much to heavy to carry around my neck let alone putting a larger lens on it and so it all has gone.....now I have the Olympus E-2 with the EVF, 9-18mm, 17mm, 14-42mm, 14-150mm, all fits nicely into a small Hadley bag and is much more compact, has a great sensor and will do anything that I want and probably a lot more that I don't need to do. So, the moral is find your comfort zone and stick with it. The mu system is not going to go away, it will only grow!!
A couple of thoughts - In the broadcast arena Sony has a very bad habit of abandoning systems. The number of tapeless ENG broadcast recorders Sony has gone through is an industry legend. Likewise for Sony with broadcast NLE systems, (non-linear editing). Panasonic, on the other hand, continues to refine its P2 broadcast systems and has even begun manufacturing some small ENG/EFP professional cameras with SD memory systems, particularly for the growing videojournalist market. (one-person bands.) I really like the sample images I've seen with Sony NEX cameras. However, for what I shoot, I really need an EVF, (or maybe a hybrid like the new Fuji,), so for one reason at least the NEX isn't an option. The image quality I'm getting from MFT cameras is exceptional. I seldom print enlargements past 11" X 14". And even if I did, with a "normal" print viewing distance, I doubt there would be much of a problem with 16 X 20 prints either. Somewhere around here I made mention that I recently sold my M8 and traded a bunch of CV glass for the new Nokton 25/.95. I got some incredible images with the M8 but I haven't looked back once since I moved exclusively into the MFT format. I certainly hope the micro four thirds format is here to stay. It's really growing into a wonderfully versatile system. Good luck. . . . Burkey
Cameras lately are in many ways are like computers, there's always something better on the horizon. The questions you need to ask your self are... Do you enjoy using your GF1? Does it allow you to produce images that you're proud of? If it does then don't worry about what may or may not be the next camera system on the block. Just shoot as often as you can.
I would feel the m43 format is here to stay, but I would feel better if a Sigma or Tamron jumped in with 3rd party lenses. Let's face it, Voigtlander and Lensbaby ain't exactly "volume" manufacturers...
thanks for all the replies!:smile: a lot of what had been said makes a lot of sense. i guess i shouldn't be hesitating to expand my set up then. i would just like to say that i think the gf1 is a wonderful camera, and m4/3 is a wonderful system and i enjoy using it. the reason i got into m4/3 was to find a camera i can use when a dslr is not appropriate, i was really impressed with it, i remember testing it out first and it exceeded all my expectations, it handles great and delivers wonderful images.
