Previous news story    Next news story

JK Imaging, Blackmagic Design and others join Micro Four Thirds

By dpreview staff on Jan 21, 2013 at 18:56 GMT

Olympus has issued a press release confirming JK Imaging and four other companies have formally signed-up to the Micro Four Thirds standard. JK Imaging announced last week that it would be offering MFT cameras under the Kodak brand. Australian company Blackmagic Design, which already offers a movie camera with a passive Micro Four Thirds mount and is rumored to be working on a fully compliant version, also joins. The other three signatories are less consumer-facing.

Like Astrodesign, announced as joining in January 2012, Photron, ViewPlus and Sys-Vistek aren't looking to make cameras for the general public. Photron builds high-speed cameras for scientific and industrial research, while Sys-Vistek makes cameras used for the machine vision field (systems to provide visual input to machine and computer systems - such as automatically visually monitoring industrial processes). Finally, ViewPlus creates products that integrate sophisticated cameras and processing techniques to provide live feeds of two and three dimensional video.


Press Release:

Blackmagic Design Pty. Ltd., JK Imaging Ltd., PHOTRON LIMITED, SVS-VISTEK GmbH and ViewPLUS Inc. join the Micro Four Thirds System Standard Group

Olympus Imaging Corp. and Panasonic Corporation jointly announced the Micro Four Thirds System standard in 2008 and have since been working together to promote the standard. Now we are pleased to announce that five more companies have recently declared their support for the standard and will be introducing products compliant with the Micro Four Thirds System standard.

Blackmagic Design Pty. Ltd., one of the world's leading innovators and manufacturers of creative video technology; JK Imaging Ltd., new representative for the world-famous "KODAK" branded cameras; PHOTRON LIMITED, the world's leading manufacturer of high speed digital imaging systems; SVS-VISTEK GmbH, an innovative company that develops professional machine vision components and systems and ViewPLUS Inc., a developer of advanced imaging-related equipment. With the addition of exciting new products from these companies, the Micro Four Thirds lineup will become much more diverse, further increasing the potential of this advanced digital imaging system.

As the company responsible for initiating both the Four Thirds System and Micro Four Thirds System standards, Olympus Imaging Corp. will continue to develop and enhance the product lineup for both standards to meet the diverse needs of our customers.

Blackmagic Design Pty. Ltd. :

An Australian company established in 1984 that manufactures high quality electronic equipment for broadcast and video production.
Blackmagic Design Pty. Ltd. Website : http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/

JK Imaging Ltd. :

An American company established in 2012, and the recently announced brand licensee for "KODAK" branded cameras, pico projectors and other digital imaging products.
JK Imaging Ltd. Website : http://www.kodakcamera.jkiltd.com

PHOTRON LIMITED. :

A Japanese company established in 1968 that provides manufacturing, sales and service of professional film and video equipment and photo- instrumentation.
PHOTRON LIMITED. Website : http://www.photron.com/

SVS-VISTEK GmbH :

A German company established in 2001 that develops, manufactures and distributes professional machine vision components and systems.
SVS-VISTEK GmbH Website : http://www.svs-vistek.com/

ViewPLUS Inc. :

A Japanese company established in 1998 that provides video equipment and the solutions which link communication and image processing as well as sensing technology.
ViewPLUS Inc. Website : http://www.viewplus.co.jp/english.html

Comments

Total comments: 115
wootpile
By wootpile (4 weeks ago)

The more in support of the format the merrier of course, but...

this might sound strange considering the generous lineup.. what I want to see are more mft lenses. yes I know there are loads, but many are old designs, and there are also gaps.

More 15mm. More macro. More updates of existing zooms.

nr.1 wish. 15mm pancake (2.0 is ok) good mix of quality and cost
(the upcoming pana 15 1.7 is neither a pancake, nor "affordable")

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Jan 23, 2013)

How come there couldn't be a shared standard for APS-C mirror less too? I mean, there is no technical reason for Fuji and Canon to not use the E-mount, especially that the flange distance and sensor size is pretty much or is the same. Obviously and unfortunately, business/legal reasons (and pride) won't allow it. Still, one could wish.
Anyway, as someone who has some m43 gear, I'm excited about this.

1 upvote
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (Jan 22, 2013)

Ok Micro 4/3 is the new C mount. There really is some good in there, for real. Now industrial / scientific and commercial application could have a long overdue more or less standard for the lens / camera integration and then some ..

Still that does not mean much to Still / Cine as most of us do here. just as old day C mount does not come close to matching what 35mm system do. Oly, Panny and whoever wanting this market need just to do their bits better and more. And well, choice is great. APS-C like the NEX and NX, future FF mirrorless all would be part of it. Those who only see M4/3 as the only game in town or the only viable game in town is not seeing the totality of the picture. After all, one size do not fit all and that's much the case then and now

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (Jan 22, 2013)

Another sign that the m4/3 consortium is the only serious destination for mirrorless camera innovation. Everyone else is making metoo systems with an embarrassing lens roadmap, most egregiously Pentax and Canon; does anyone even remember that Canon made a system? Fuji and Leica make expensive larks for a smallish number of well-off enthusiasts. It's too bad that the other makers chose not to support their mirrorless systems with a decent lens range (the Sigma primes are a highlight of the Nex system? Really?) but this is the inevitable result. It only makes sense that the companies that commit 100% to mirrorless make a system that others want to join.

1 upvote
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 22, 2013)

M43 is great

- because of the pragmatic fit of sensor quality to lenses dimensions.

But bringing in “Kodak” ... and those "...magic"? This is weak. M43 still needs more self confidence to win. Better coalitions against the Old Big Boys to get a chance are needed.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Jan 22, 2013)

The Blackmagic camera is about to damage Canon DSLR sales quite a lot for video use only. It's a lot cheaper than a 5D MKIII and the quality is a lot better. Dynamic range is much better. Back orders are quite large from the shops. I know of one shop in London where towards the end of last year they had over 250 cameras on order with deposits paid on all of them and that is just one shop.

1 upvote
Rich
By Rich (Jan 24, 2013)

That's fine and all but they'll need a 4/3 sensor that can run at the speeds they need. So far Aptina is the only company I know of offering a semi-large sensor fast enough but it's only 1". Of course they could probably make one a little bigger

0 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 22, 2013)

Interesting commentary by Thom Hogan on this.
"As much as anything in the camera world, m4/3 is going viral. "

He points anyone can join M43, make a camera body and they have instant lenses available. Anyone can make m43 lenses and not have to deal with the tweaks Canikon always make that disrupt their compatibility.

Even more interesting is sensor cost goes up exponentially with size. This means that while many think DX and M4/3 are similar, the m4/3 companies possibly make a lot more profit...another reason so many are joining I guess.

It will be fun to watch over the next couple years!

0 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (Jan 22, 2013)

What’s the point of m4/3 format now when Sony, Samsung, Canon, Fuji, Pentax and Ricoh all have ASP-C mirrorless systems? Initial promise of m4/3 was smaller and lighter bodies and lens not only because of getting rid of the mirror and allowing for the shorter lens registration distance but also supposedly thanks to the smaller sensor. Now look at Sony’s NEX line for example – overall size and weight are both comparable to what Oly and Pana have to offer but with bigger sensors affording less noise, more DR, more resolution and more DOF control. No wonder NEX is wildly popular. So why to stick with 2x crop sensor format which nowadays doesn’t deliver any tangible benefits in IQ or size/weight or speed or price or innovation or even battery life?

3 upvotes
Macx
By Macx (Jan 22, 2013)

I agree that if there is no price or size advantage, then there is no particular advantage to 4:3rds, but is that really true? The APS-C lenses still seem larger than the micro 4:3rds ones.

Btw, I would question your claim that "NEX is wildly popular". What do you base that on?

3 upvotes
Everdog
By Everdog (Jan 22, 2013)

LOL, NEX sales have dropped to only 20% in Japan while m43 has stayed over 50% even with new entries from Nikon and Canon.
Also the NEX lenses are GINOURMOUS and have slow apertures. Compare the NEX 50mm to the Oly 45mm in size, and look at how any NEX lens over 55mm is F/6.3.

Anyway NEX is proprietary. Even when they claimed they would open up the lens spec, you had to apply and only a few companies got permission. NO ONE but Sony is allowed to make bodies. NEX is like memory sticks.

Oh, and since the latest Sony m43 sensors match their APSC sensors at almost all ISOs, why buy those giant/slow lenses that are soft in the corners when M43 offers so much more?
Why pay for IS in every lens (in size weight and cost) when Olympus offer IBIS that is better than Sony's in-lens IS?

7 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 22, 2013)

No klopus, m4/3 lenses are still so much smaller for the same 35mm equiv focal length.

6 upvotes
rurikw
By rurikw (Jan 22, 2013)

Who can say what is the optimal sensor size with regard to IQ vs size/weight/handling? For one it might be APS-C, for another 4/3, for someone else FF, for yet another 1"... The difference between 4/3 and APS-C isn't huge so what's the fuss about? I agree with Macx that the difference size- and weightwise is amplified when you put lenses on. For someone that might be a good reason to choose 4/3, for someone else not. Many comments sound like there is a huge IQ advantage with APS-C vs 4/3 as if the ability to push sensitivity one stop higher or the slightly shallower DOF were essential. I haven't bought my first digital system yet but am leaning toward m4/3 for other reasons.

0 upvotes
wyoming
By wyoming (Jan 23, 2013)

how can one says that m43 aren't smaller than the apsc i don't know...
yes the 20-50 samsung lens is quite small and so it is the sony pankake but you can't change phisic.
and the difference is even bigger if we look at the tele zoom.
my opinion m4.3 today is a great balance dimension/iq, the only problem is high price of the lenses, hope that with the increasing competitors even the prices will reduce.

0 upvotes
Everdog
By Everdog (Jan 22, 2013)

Micro Four Thirds is really expanding. With so many markets like "photo- instrumentation" now relying on it, we can say it is here to stay.

It will be fun to see how many more companies join the party.

It is getting to be like PC vs. Mac. One is fairly open the others are highly restricted and proprietary which kills market share.

1 upvote
wakaba
By wakaba (Jan 22, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg

Marketingbull aside - this is what you get for your money: Cheap tiny sensor, no prism viewfinder, no mirror assembly, questionable live view, all functions are software. Small lenses - and what is the point again - changing a crappy lens with another crapplens again?

In a nutshell, MFT, is not good - it is just a heck of a lot cheaper to make cameras this way and one way is sacrificing quality.

It is not about propriatarianism - it is about getting the best possible tool fgs.

5 upvotes
chris_j_l
By chris_j_l (Jan 22, 2013)

@wakaba - you forgot to mention that u4/3 abused you as a child and is responsible for global warming.

The sensor is not "tiny" - smaller yes, but tiny? I shoot with a full frame and I'd say u4/3 has worse noise characteristics and DoF can be a bit tougher to play with, but when push comes to shove, when I look at images I have sold, the most popular were made with 1/1.7" and 1/2.5" sensors and images I have from u4/3 are higher quality in almost all ways.

Serious professionals can get good shots from most tools and don't get up-tight about some tools requiring a bit more thought and care.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Jan 22, 2013)

Remarkably unremarkable...
This aside - MFT is a cost cutting excercise - and not a sign of quality.

2 upvotes
Tomskyair
By Tomskyair (Jan 22, 2013)

"In a nutshell, using cheap 35mm cinema film and tiny lenses is not good - it's not about quality but just about making cameras a lot cheaper!"

Uttered from underneath a heavy, sweat soaked cloth over a 8x10 field camera when Oscar Barnack introduced the first Leica.

5 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Jan 23, 2013)

> By wakaba:... MFT is a cost cutting excercise - and not a sign of quality...

Not arguing over cost cutting with you, but m43 really is about standardization. With standards come diversity, as in all players can join and game and compete. Ultimately, consumers benefit from it.

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Jan 22, 2013)

Long time ago in the "film times", the available technology principles exacted right-angled formats regardless of the side ratio, and the most versatile format was pure square, like 6 x 6. It used the most of the lens field of view.
The only format that could use even more would be round, right?
With new technology, these technical restrictions are no more.
Yet we buy the newest cameras and these still have only round lenses.
For any end purpose one has to crop the images, whether these started as 2:3, 4:3, 1:1 or something else. The books, newspapers, posters or TV screens dictate their image size ratios, and some sort of cropping process is always needed.
So, if the camera manufacturers were to apply one universal standard, it seems logical that it be (at least) square. It would simplify the camera holding by 50% (!) and use almost maximum of the lens FOV.
Hmm. I guess people would have to come to terms with that first, before proceeding to the "anarchistically absolute round".

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rurikw
By rurikw (Jan 22, 2013)

Old Arrow, I couldn't agree more. It's totally incomprehensible to me why sensors are not square or even circular for the reasons you stated. I also find it very hard to understand why practically all digital still cameras are shaped like rectangular slabs perpendicular to the optical axis as if there was a roll of film to accommodate. This might be ONE viable alternative but look at other objects that are designed to be held steadily and comfortably and aimed at some object: 1) video camera style 2) gun/hair dryer/power drill style. Why are neither of these options explored, let alone any new ones?

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Jan 22, 2013)

The forces of habit are much more powerful than gravity, even when unaided by vanity (which is very present throughout photography). However, some manufacturers seem not to be bound by what the buying public seems to think things should look like. See the post below, Blackmagic is one refreshing exception.

0 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (Jan 22, 2013)

Yes yes !
a 38Mpx hair dryer !!

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Jan 25, 2013)

Hehe, so just watch that you don't attempt to dry your hair with anything that has .38 written alongside... ;)

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (Jan 22, 2013)

Take a look at the comments on the original announcement:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/16/blackmagic-announces-blackmagic-cinema-camera

I think this company listens to the customers...

1 upvote
australopithecus
By australopithecus (Jan 22, 2013)

Nice to read "Australian" ~ "American" ~ "German" and "Japanese". No China ?
Or do they outsource ?

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 22, 2013)

Black Magic and Kodak I've heard of. The others not.

m43 is where it's at for me.

2x crop + great IQ + good wide angle lenses >>>> DOF + minimal increase in IQ

That's how I see it anyway.

6 upvotes
wootpile
By wootpile (Jan 22, 2013)

One can only hope that Kodak will be developing a m43 sensor of their own. Good for competition and opens for additional camera brands. I doubt it though, it will probably be the existing sensors again. Still, we can always hope :)

1 upvote
Multifot
By Multifot (Jan 22, 2013)

Kodak died. Forget it!

3 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jan 22, 2013)

They have no means to manufacture or develop or even engineer anything, they are now selling the name. You can probably make a cereal with kodak name if you wish.

2 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (Jan 22, 2013)

The existing sensors are pretty good. I would not relish coming up with something to beat the sensor in Olympus's current generation. Then again Kodak could do something cool like Foveon, on-chip phase detect or a b/w chip in an affordable body and become the flavor o' the week quite fast.

0 upvotes
PLAMBERT
By PLAMBERT (1 month ago)

Micro4/3 cameras do not fit in the pocket. They need a shoulder bag, particularly if you have several lenses. For the money the image quality is very good. It isn't as good as those from a Leica M9 but look how much cheaper it is. I can use Leica lenses on adapters on my G5 but I never do - the M4/3 prime lenses are sharper than the sensor.....
Philip

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 22, 2013)

Absolutely irrelevant. The camera world goes where Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony takes it.

5 upvotes
EricWN
By EricWN (Jan 22, 2013)

Surely you usually wake up at that stage...

14 upvotes
cheddargav
By cheddargav (Jan 22, 2013)

Absolutely irrelevant pretty much sums it up. Your statement that is. Dear oh dear...

9 upvotes
Nick Bangkok
By Nick Bangkok (Jan 22, 2013)

The camera world used to go where Kodak took it :)

11 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 22, 2013)

Well, it was Panasonic and Olympus who launched the first mirrorless system (Leica's and Epson's rangefinders excepted), not Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony. Even Samsung got there before those four did.
Sure Canon, Nikon and Sony are the "big three" in the camera world, but none of them are (yet) as big as m4/3 in the mirrorless ILC market. Fuji is certainly innovative and make some great cameras, but they're only a small player.

6 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Jan 22, 2013)

Which one of those companies took the camera world into mirrorless?

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 22, 2013)

zkz5, that would depend on what you mean by "mirrorless". There have always been cameras without mirror and pentaprism, such as the rangefinders that Leica keeps producing till these days, but "mirrorless" (or CSC - Compact System Cameras) applies to interchangeable lens cameras that rely on live view (or an electronic viewfinder) and contrast detection autofocus. They were first created by the micro 4/3 consortium, compounded of Olympus and Panasonic. The latter launched the first CSC camera, the Panasonic G1, in 2008, followed by the Olympus E-P1 in 2009. The latter was the first to present the compact, slim lines that establish the trend other manufacturers would soon follow. (The Panasonic G1 had the shape of a DSLR.)

1 upvote
zkz5
By zkz5 (Jan 22, 2013)

That's what I figured. I didn't spot any of "Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony" in your description either.

0 upvotes
digby dart
By digby dart (Jan 22, 2013)

After having a chat to a couple of blokes while they were using a Blackmagic EF Cinema Camera a month back it was pretty impressive gear. The rear screen was blisteringly clear, the dynamic range impressive, well worth the $3000 for the body. There is also a 4/3 model, if Blackmagic make more 4/3 gear in the future it will likely be of premium quality.

2 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Jan 22, 2013)

Nikon and Canon should get in on 4/3 band wagon .... they'd clean house overnight. Especially if they put out low priced lens adapters the same day they release the new bodies.

2 upvotes
EricWN
By EricWN (Jan 22, 2013)

Because it is so much fun to run around with lenses 2x their regular focal range, and on top, they are nice, fat, heavy and oversized in many cases when mounted to a m4/3 camera. m4/3 has some really interesting lenses on their own.

8 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Jan 22, 2013)

Why would Canikon bother? They already make premium compacts and SLR's why fall for the marketing nonsense that got people thinking they needed a bridge between the two?

All 4/3 does is sell expensive stuff with inferior image quality to tech addicts, none of the cameras are as versatile as an SLR or as compact as a compact. I'm amazed they sell any cameras at all!

5 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Jan 22, 2013)

Canon has no reason whatsoever to do that, having their own EOS M mirrorless camera, which already has a lens adaptor allowing the use of EF lenses.

Nikon has no motivation to do that, having put their money behind their own smaller sensor 1 series mirrorless cameras.

5 upvotes
cheddargav
By cheddargav (Jan 22, 2013)

While I don't see Canon joining m4/3, their mirrorless cameras are going to have to improve vastly because the EOS M is bad. Slowwww AF and no VF = cack

3 upvotes
mfj197
By mfj197 (Jan 22, 2013)

Hugo808, guess you've never used a m43 (not 4/3) camera then?

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 22, 2013)

"none of the cameras are as versatile as an SLR or as compact as a compact."

No, but a mirrorless ILC is smaller than a DSLR and almost as versatile, and more versatile than a compact and not much larger. For many of us, that's the perfect compromise between size and performance.

7 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Jan 22, 2013)

"No, but a mirrorless ILC is smaller than a DSLR and almost as versatile, and more versatile than a compact and not much larger. For many of us, that's the perfect compromise between size and performance."

It depends on what mirrorless camera you are talking about, and what compact. If you compare mirrorless cameras to the G series compacts, I don't agree one bit. Only one camera really interests me at all compared to a G series camera that is mirrorless- that is the OM-D EM5 and we all know that it's no where near as compact as a G15 without a lens, let alone with one. And price, you can't even touch the G15's price with anything that is comparable (operability, features etc) from m4/3.

1 upvote
papillon_65
By papillon_65 (Jan 22, 2013)

Well a Panasonic G3 is similar sized to a G15 with much better IQ and costs less so I'm not sure which planet you live on?

1 upvote
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Jan 22, 2013)

Why would I mfj? I have a decent SLR and a decent compact, why spend a lot of money on something that falls between both stools?

MFT is the best of neither world, too big too fit in your pocket but IQ not as good as something else you have to carry round your neck. I don't get it.

1 upvote
papillon_65
By papillon_65 (Jan 22, 2013)

@hugo808 if you've never tried it then you're not likely to get it. That's a bit like saying I don't like fish but I've never tried it either, that's what kids do. As it happens a camera like the OMD will outperform many DSLRs in many areas, that's why lots of people are migrating over to it on a daily basis. Check the m4/3's forum.

2 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (Jan 22, 2013)

Hugo808, many "DSLR" users are puzzled by m43 just like you.

The best way to answer your own question is go into a store and hold/try an OMD - or rent one and see for yourself.

Size difference including lenses to DSLR is huge. IQ wise it is competitive with any DSLR FF or APS upto mid range and in some conditions will give High end DSLR a good scare as well.

Dont take my word for it try it for yourself, it may not be your cup of tea, but it certainly fits the bill for many other users.

2 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Jan 22, 2013)

What happened to Tokina and Tamron? They joined MFT last year and we haven't seen anything yet.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/26/Tamron_Tokina_join_MicroFourThirds

1 upvote
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Jan 22, 2013)

R&D takes time. I'm guessing it would surprise you greatly if you found out how long some of the products currently in the market take to develop.

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 22, 2013)

Tokina released a 300mm f/5.6 mirror lens last year.

4 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 22, 2013)

I remember the time when all the sceptics were saying the M4/3 would not last -an opinion based largely on the relatively poor noise performance of early cameras such as the G1 and E-P1. Early adoptees who bought a collection of lenses would be really celebrating now.

Cheers

8 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 22, 2013)

And it still goes nowhere, m43 has no future. The trend is toward bigger sensors, not smaller. Wait and see when Sony or Fuji release FF mirrorless, that will be a whole new game.

6 upvotes
EricWN
By EricWN (Jan 22, 2013)

@forpetesake: you are speculating on FF sensors in products that don't exist. And those will probably cost a fortune. Great if m4/3 isn't for you, just move on.

11 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (Jan 22, 2013)

@forpetessake RX1? Can you afford one?

2 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Jan 22, 2013)

Whenever several FF cameras are released in a short time period, the FF fans get all excited and declare it the wave of the future.

But the truth is.... FF is a very niche product. It is very profitable, but the actual sales numbers are very small.

There certainly is a place in the market for FF cameras. But there is a much larger place for cameras with smaller sensors.

12 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 22, 2013)

The trend is towards all sensor formats getting better, including 4/3. And for many people a m4/3 camera is the optimal combination of IQ, size and cost.
The average consumer doesn't buy a high-end camera. Most people can't afford expensive FF gear, so that won't do much to redistribute the market shares in mirrorless.

3 upvotes
Tomskyair
By Tomskyair (Jan 22, 2013)

One thing the FFF's (Full Format Fetishists) tend to overlook all the time is that the required lenses for FF won't exactly shrink just by cutting the mirror out of the camera body. Sony's latest FF contraption clearly shows this. Even though the RX1 only sports a modest wide-angle prime the thing already seems to be imbalanced towards the front end. Now imagine a 24-85 zoom on that body, not even necessarily an f2.8. Would look awkward for sure and most likely handle the same...

Agree that FF MILC will most likely stay a niche market for the moment being. M43 caters for the crowd who put major emphasis on minimum weight and size. APS-C MILC serves those who look after a tad more IQ and better DOF control while still maintaining a significantly weight and size advantage over an APS-C or FF DSLR system.

FF MILC in my opinion makes llittle sense. For handling beefy lenses I need a beefy camera body. So the mirror can stay right were it is now...

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
rocklobster
By rocklobster (Jan 22, 2013)

What 'forpetessake' is forgetting is that lens size is proportional to sensor size on interchangeable lens cameras. Where the Sony RX1 gets away with its small size is that the lens - in order to make it that small - most likely has severe barrel/pincushion distortion that is processed out of the final image. What I am saying is that an interchangeable lens version of the RX1 would be a much larger beast. The real trend is for smaller cameras bodies whilst retaining a larger sensor size however there is not much point having a large lens on a small body and M4/3 gets that balance exactly right.

Cheers

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Jan 22, 2013)

This will be good for the 4/3 industry.

...and for the consumers.

.

8 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Jan 21, 2013)

pretty stoked about the idea of the BMC with active mft mounts. I think they could make the sensor fully mft sized though, and if they did...SOLD!

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 22, 2013)

I'm in as well. Here's an idea: a BMCC hybrid still-video camera similar to the GH3. How awesome would that be?

5 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Jan 23, 2013)

Thats pretty much the GH3, right? Im not sure who supplies BM with their chips but they are excellent at DR, but they aren't quite big enough. We need an AF100 sized chip (slightly bigger than the GH2/3)

0 upvotes
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 21, 2013)

Absolutely wonderful news !
I'm tickled pink.
This puts us just a bit closer to having a Universal Mount.

I don't care if these are lower tier companies or specialized products, next step is to add another "Major" player, PENTAX are you listening ?

rd

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jan 21, 2013)

I agree, Pentax should join MFT.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5288/5267764174_755d8e68bd_b.jpg

5 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Jan 22, 2013)

Pentax already has two "universal mounts". m42 and K. Why do they need another?

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 22, 2013)

I agree with Richard, Pentax doesn't need another mount, they need a FF DSLR something Pentax users have been requesting for several years now.

0 upvotes
kff
By kff (Jan 22, 2013)

Pentax Ricoh has GXR modular system which is opened for next senzors (include medium format) or for next mounts (include MFT).

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jan 22, 2013)

What good is a mount if it won't work for bigger sensors?

3 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jan 22, 2013)

I did not mean that MFT should replace the current K-mount but be an addition between the K mount and Q mount. BTW I use my legacy full frame K mount lenses on the new full frame Sony NEX-VG900 with low cost PK-NEX adapters.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8338/8170745790_59300d69fc_k.jpg

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Jan 22, 2013)

"What good is a mount if it won't work for bigger sensors?"

Yeah, seriously. How are these crappy little "full frame" bayonet mounts we see everywhere ever going to accomodate an 8x10 sensor?

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 22, 2013)

@kff. The Ricoh GXR modules are cameras. Of course they are open for new sensors. Like all other cameras.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 21, 2013)

"Australian company Blackmagic Design, which already offers a movie camera with a passive Micro Four Thirds mount and is rumored to be working on a fully compliant version, also joins."

Considering that the company has no camera, compliant or non-compliant Micro 4/3 or anything else otherwise, that is good news indeed. But personally, I am waiting for a decent M4/3rd SDI capture car from them.

1 upvote
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Jan 21, 2013)

What? Black magic has a cinema camera with passive a MFT mount.

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera

6 upvotes
sbszine
By sbszine (Jan 22, 2013)

Francis, check B&H Photo for lots of Black Magic products, including Micro 4/3 and EF mount video cameras.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 22, 2013)

I thought the implication was that because the BMCC hasn't shipped then it doesn't really exist. But maybe Francis doesn't know about the wonderful BMCC. It's certainly is causing quite a stir in the video world as few, if any cameras in it's price point have so many high end features like 2.5K raw with superb IQ.

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Jan 22, 2013)

it is $3000 camera - in that field it is like giving it for free.

2 upvotes
nelsonal
By nelsonal (Jan 22, 2013)

Francis seems to be one either a die hard fan of something else, or really upset that the BMCC didn't ship as promised back at announcement.

1 upvote
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Jan 21, 2013)

It would seem that the decision to build a 4/3 sensor system wasn't such a bad idea after all; perhaps given that the original 35mm film Cine cameras were based on such a format (thanks to Thomas Edison I believe - from Wikipedia):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/3011840

Blackmagic CineCamera:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 21, 2013)

Yes, and maybe Blackmagic will build a still camera with the awesome 14 EV DR of their Cinema Camera. It's unlikely, but I'd buy one if they did.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 21, 2013)

Well, when it comes to BMD, I suppose first they would have to build their first camera, after that they can perhaps build their second camera. I'm sorry, I did not get the connection between the Edison Kinetoscope, on the one hand, and the Blackmagic camera that Blackmagic still claims they will one day make, on the other hand.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 21, 2013)

@ Francis Carver
I see what your what you're doing. You are trying to suggest that companies never, ever have shipping delays, and when they do it means they haven't actually built the announced camera. So I suppose you also questioned whether the Canon 1DX or NEX-7, both of which had major shipping delays, were actually cameras at all. Which of course we know is simply absurd. The BMCC is an actual camera that will ship very soon. And if you've seen any of the videos from what you claim is an imaginary camera, you would know why it has generated such a huge amount of interest and pre-orders.

3 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Jan 22, 2013)

Francis Carver:
“I did not get the connection between the Edison Kinetoscope, on the one hand, and the Blackmagic camera”

Well, for an industry standard format that has been in place since before 1909 at least, continuity does play a small part. As movie house projectors go digital I suppose filmmakers are going to look to companies like Panasonic, BMC, Cosina, Zeiss and others to provide the tools to supply content.

Edison's Motion Picture Patents Trust standardized the 35mm gauge in 1909. The 35mm standard for movies was set at four perforations per frame or 16 frames per foot of film.

1 upvote
lbuglinbilly
By lbuglinbilly (Jan 21, 2013)

I sure hope Olympus will introduce an new top end DSLR camera. How long has the E-5 been around? Its way past a good update. Hopefully this will help them press on and develop and release a top end model and keep up to some degree with Canon and Nikon. It's way past due in my estimation.

Does anyone have any update on those plans?

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ptox
By ptox (Jan 21, 2013)

43rumors had some items about six weeks ago regarding pretty firm plans to release an m4/3 camera (likely OM-D branded) later in 2013 that has full 4/3 support via an active adapter.

If true, it won't be a DSLR (i.e. no OVF/mirror) -- but it should be a worthy upgrade for 4/3 shooter not philosophically opposed to an EVF. :-)

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jan 22, 2013)

Regular 4/3 is pretty much dead. The market for it is way too small now. Heck, even at its peak, the market for 4/3 was pretty small. I doubt they'll be putting any more money into it, because it would be a money loser. That might sound harsh, but it's an economic reality. In the DSLR format wars, APS-C won, 4/3 lost.

They are putting their money into m4/3 instead. Which is smart, because there is a market there, and they can make money. There is no longer any market, or any money, in 4/3. I wouldn't hold my breath for any future 4/3 (mirrored) DSLRs.

5 upvotes
mchnz
By mchnz (Jan 22, 2013)

Olympus has all those legendary 4/3 high end zooms that aren't matched by anything in m4/3. If they could extend the market for those existing designs I imagine it could a good windfall given their big price tags. Worth a punt now that their sensor is as good as any other smaller format DSLR's. Even the option of one day using these zooms may swing some buyers.

0 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (Jan 21, 2013)

This announcement means more customers for Olympus and Panny M4/3 lenses and accessaries. Good news.

2 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Jan 21, 2013)

... so the m4/3 is going viral ;)

6 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 21, 2013)

Seems so. Not bad for a noisy, fingernail-sized sensor size that:
a) has no depth of field control;
b) no dynamic range;
c) multiplies the aperture by X2 and
d) is found inside "glorified point and shoots"...
(NB all quotations from comments read here at DPR)

15 upvotes
Casadilla
By Casadilla (Jan 21, 2013)

What you failed to notice about the companies that joined m4/3 is many of them have different needs that you, perhaps? Please read and be educated.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/m43-expands.html

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Jan 21, 2013)

@manuelvilardmacedo - you must have huge hands

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 21, 2013)

I knew my reply would be misunderstood - at least by some... it was meant to be a sarcasm on micro 4/3 dismissive comments I've read here on the last few years. I'm so sorry you didn't get it.

11 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 21, 2013)

@hammerheadfistpunch, I have normal fingers. When I'm photographing, these normal fingers of mine are usually holding a micro 4/3 camera - as you would have noticed if you looked at my 'avatar'.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 22, 2013)

Not sure..your fingers make that camera look mighty small.

1 upvote
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Jan 22, 2013)

@manuelvilardmacedo, you fail at sarcasm :)

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jan 22, 2013)

Mssimo, that's what wide-angle lenses do. By the way, the camera is an Olympus E-P1.
Jan, however lame the sarcasm was, it was not half as pathetic as the arguments against the 4/3 sensor. It couldn't be, no matter how hard I'd try... it is true the first generation 4/3 sensors had limited dynamic range and were quite noisy above ISO 400, but the new, Sony-manufactured, 4/3 narrowed the gap to APS-C drastically.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
OniMirage
By OniMirage (Jan 21, 2013)

So wait while the companies are joining the m4/3 group, why is only Olympus making the announcement and not Oly and Panny? Are the 4 entering the group via a deal struck with Oly?!?

0 upvotes
Surefoot
By Surefoot (Jan 21, 2013)

We can suppose Olympus is acting as the chairman of the consortium.

2 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Jan 22, 2013)

Panny leaving if their FF mirrorless pans out?

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 22, 2013)

When Astrodesign, Kenko Tokina and Tamron joined the group a year ago, Olympus made the announcement. And when Carl Zeiss and Schneider joined in 2011, Olympus announced that too.

I guess Olympus makes the announcements because they (and not Panasonic) own the Micro Four Thirds trademark.

1 upvote
bunfoolio
By bunfoolio (Jan 21, 2013)

This is good for M4/3. The consumers will win out with better lower cost products with more choice. I am happy that I bought into the system 2 years ago.

0 upvotes
morepix
By morepix (Jan 21, 2013)

Kodak branding seems like a poor choice from a marketing POV. It's something like Ford introducing a new model line named Edsel.

3 upvotes
John Bean (UK)
By John Bean (UK) (Jan 21, 2013)

I'm not so sure. The dead Voigtlander brand worked well for Cosina when they reintroduced it...

8 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Jan 21, 2013)

and there are quite a few "Mini"s knocking about.

1 upvote
Donald Duck
By Donald Duck (Jan 21, 2013)

What's Edsel?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 29 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
JeanPierre Martel
By JeanPierre Martel (Jan 21, 2013)

What's Edsel ?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qu-ovgXFWO0/T1GDbl7ZKvI/AAAAAAAABdk/k6lpovZE1dQ/s1600/1958_Edsel_Citation.jpg

0 upvotes
Prairie Pal
By Prairie Pal (Jan 21, 2013)

Ed sells sea shells down by the sea shore.

3 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (Jan 22, 2013)

Kodak has been a train crash in motion for a while now. Don't expect it to stop anytime soon.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 115