Any one feels that Canon missed it's chance to kill M43 with EOS-R?

[PhotoTeach2]

Only if they produced a camera/lens that weighed under 2000 grams that would produce the equivalent FOV of a FF camera with a 1200mm lens which could be easily hand held at 1/30 second. Uncropped image.

i think my Nikon 1 combo is sharper to be honest

I agree and it was mostly FF-snobery that prevented it getting a fair shake.

I confess I was also quilty of that since I IGNORED its first preview introduction at the 2011 LV-CES.

It was 5-years later when a situation forced me to use a 1/2.3" and found its IQ was better than expected and became enamored w/ advantages of (long) tele and other ML/EVF advantages -- which led me to FZ-1000, (as a perfect "compromise" between 1/2.3" and FF w/ advantage of "leaf" shutter in fixed-lens for speed/convenience of "continuous" zoom).

 

[New Day Rising]

Only if they produced a camera/lens that weighed under 2000 grams that would produce the equivalent FOV of a FF camera with a 1200mm lens which could be easily hand held at 1/30 second. Uncropped image.

i think my Nikon 1 combo is sharper to be honest

I agree and it was mostly FF-snobery that prevented it getting a fair shake.

I confess I was also quilty of that since I IGNORED its first preview introduction at the 2011 LV-CES.

It was 5-years later when a situation forced me to use a 1/2.3" and found its IQ was better than expected and became enamored w/ advantages of (long) tele and other ML/EVF advantages -- which led me to FZ-1000, (as a perfect "compromise" between 1/2.3" and FF w/ advantage of "leaf" shutter in fixed-lens for speed/convenience of "continuous" zoom).

I had a Nikon 1 system that I really liked. Very good IQ for a tiny system - 300mm equivalent reach in that miniscule 30-110 lens was amazing. The system was also particularly good for macro where the extra dof was really useful. The frame rates were astonishing and the AF excellent. It was a very capable little system.

FF snobbery was probably part of what killed it, but more than anything in my view it was Nikon's weird decisions and constant changes between models. From the V1 to the V2 and then V3 they completely changed the design, including changing batteries (being able to share batteries between my D7000 and V1 was really useful), moving to micro SD cards, removing the built-in EVF from the V3 so you had to buy an add-on EVF. Nikon letting the system be overtaken by the Sony RX100 series with its same sized but much better sensor. The whole system ended up feeling kind of random and uncertain - it felt like it was on the verge of being discontinued long before it did.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Only if they produced a camera/lens that weighed under 2000 grams that would produce the equivalent FOV of a FF camera with a 1200mm lens which could be easily hand held at 1/30 second. Uncropped image.

i think my Nikon 1 combo is sharper to be honest

I agree and it was mostly FF-snobery that prevented it getting a fair shake.

I confess I was also quilty of that since I IGNORED its first preview introduction at the 2011 LV-CES.

It was 5-years later when a situation forced me to use a 1/2.3" and found its IQ was better than expected and became enamored w/ advantages of (long) tele and other ML/EVF advantages -- which led me to FZ-1000, (as a perfect "compromise" between 1/2.3" and FF w/ advantage of "leaf" shutter in fixed-lens for speed/convenience of "continuous" zoom).

I had a Nikon 1 system that I really liked. Very good IQ for a tiny system - 300mm equivalent reach in that miniscule 30-110 lens was amazing. The system was also particularly good for macro where the extra dof was really useful. The frame rates were astonishing and the AF excellent. It was a very capable little system.

FF snobbery was probably part of what killed it, but more than anything in my view it was Nikon's weird decisions and constant changes between models. From the V1 to the V2 and then V3 they completely changed the design, including changing batteries (being able to share batteries between my D7000 and V1 was really useful), moving to micro SD cards, removing the built-in EVF from the V3 so you had to buy an add-on EVF. Nikon letting the system be overtaken by the Sony RX100 series with its same sized but much better sensor. The whole system ended up feeling kind of random and uncertain - it felt like it was on the verge of being discontinued long before it did.

FF snobbery didn't kill it; the fact that there is no logic in a 1" ILC system did, as the continued success of the RX10/100 show

Nikon really dropped the ball with the DL line... a DL1850, DL with a 35mm equivalent lens and F/1.2 aperture, and a DL superzoom would have made way more sense than the 1 system

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 

[tbcass]

FF snobbery didn't kill it; the fact that there is no logic in a 1" ILC system did, as the continued success of the RX10/100 show

I think you're right. The Nikon line was doing alright until the Sony RX10/100 cameras were introduced. For most people the necessity to change lenses coupled with the fact that being an ICL the cameras with tele zooms weren't as compact. Being able to have much to most of the lens inside the body allows much smaller size.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

Only if they produced a camera/lens that weighed under 2000 grams that would produce the equivalent FOV of a FF camera with a 1200mm lens which could be easily hand held at 1/30 second. Uncropped image.

i think my Nikon 1 combo is sharper to be honest

I agree and it was mostly FF-snobery that prevented it getting a fair shake.

I confess I was also quilty of that since I IGNORED its first preview introduction at the 2011 LV-CES.

It was 5-years later when a situation forced me to use a 1/2.3" and found its IQ was better than expected and became enamored w/ advantages of (long) tele and other ML/EVF advantages -- which led me to FZ-1000, (as a perfect "compromise" between 1/2.3" and FF w/ advantage of "leaf" shutter in fixed-lens for speed/convenience of "continuous" zoom).

I had a Nikon 1 system that I really liked. Very good IQ for a tiny system - 300mm equivalent reach in that miniscule 30-110 lens was amazing. The system was also particularly good for macro where the extra dof was really useful. The frame rates were astonishing and the AF excellent. It was a very capable little system.

FF snobbery was probably part of what killed it, but more than anything in my view it was Nikon's weird decisions and constant changes between models. From the V1 to the V2 and then V3 they completely changed the design, including changing batteries (being able to share batteries between my D7000 and V1 was really useful), moving to micro SD cards, removing the built-in EVF from the V3 so you had to buy an add-on EVF. Nikon letting the system be overtaken by the Sony RX100 series with its same sized but much better sensor. The whole system ended up feeling kind of random and uncertain - it felt like it was on the verge of being discontinued long before it did.

FF snobbery didn't kill it; the fact that there is no logic in a 1" ILC system did, as the continued success of the RX10/100 show

Nikon really dropped the ball with the DL line... a DL1850, DL with a 35mm equivalent lens and F/1.2 aperture, and a DL superzoom would have made way more sense than the 1 system

it would have fared better with more lenses and consistent designs rather than something different each time....the pricing sucked as well

--
"My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive."

 

[sportyaccordy]

it would have fared better with more lenses and consistent designs rather than something different each time....the pricing sucked as well

I just can't see why anyone would buy a bag of 1 lenses in the face of an RX100 with a 1.8-2.8 zoom, or a constant 10x 2.8 zoom

Most of the market felt the same which is why Nikon 1 died. Really should have just been a line of fixed lens compacts. There was no saving a 1" ILC system

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

it would have fared better with more lenses and consistent designs rather than something different each time....the pricing sucked as well

I just can't see why anyone would buy a bag of 1 lenses in the face of an RX100 with a 1.8-2.8 zoom, or a constant 10x 2.8 zoom

Most of the market felt the same which is why Nikon 1 died. Really should have just been a line of fixed lens compacts. There was no saving a 1" ILC system

some of use liked it for telephoto work, makes it very easy to get to an AOV of 800mm

 

[sportyaccordy]

it would have fared better with more lenses and consistent designs rather than something different each time....the pricing sucked as well

I just can't see why anyone would buy a bag of 1 lenses in the face of an RX100 with a 1.8-2.8 zoom, or a constant 10x 2.8 zoom

Most of the market felt the same which is why Nikon 1 died. Really should have just been a line of fixed lens compacts. There was no saving a 1" ILC system

some of use liked it for telephoto work, makes it very easy to get to an AOV of 800mm

That's fair but there aren't enough of you to support a system. Plus you didn't need more lenses for that IIRC; adapted F mount glass worked fine.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

it would have fared better with more lenses and consistent designs rather than something different each time....the pricing sucked as well

I just can't see why anyone would buy a bag of 1 lenses in the face of an RX100 with a 1.8-2.8 zoom, or a constant 10x 2.8 zoom

Most of the market felt the same which is why Nikon 1 died. Really should have just been a line of fixed lens compacts. There was no saving a 1" ILC system

some of use liked it for telephoto work, makes it very easy to get to an AOV of 800mm

That's fair but there aren't enough of you to support a system. Plus you didn't need more lenses for that IIRC; adapted F mount glass worked fine.

it did but it's still nice to have native lenses, the system was good enough for a lot of people and it's AF system left the mirrorless competition for dead back in the day, for Nikon it was wise to stop it, the DL is debatable i have to admit

 

[oldtimes]

Why kill that which is already dying?.

 

[Astrotripper]

You're comparing a pancake lens to an actual performer

I'm not actually comparing anything. Just pointing the obvious fact that if you want compactness, MFT will be a lot more compact.

Take a look at canon's 50mm f1.2

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/50mm-f12.htm

VS

Olympus f1.2 25mm (50mm for FF)

https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/mlens/25_12pro/spec.html

Don't care about either. And not sure what's your point. That an MFT lens is half the price, half the weight, half the size and half the amount of background blur?

It's just interesting to see what can Canon do to shrink the lens size since it ignored IBIS that is if they took their mount seriously before.

Canon will have IBIS, it's pretty obvious.

As for pricing, I was surprised Canon didn't bother to make non-pro lenses for the R line-up

Apparently they don't want to waste money on designing lenses for a dying market. Good call.

Maybe they realised non-pros are satisfied with smartphones more than actual cams?

Exactly this. The only ones buying cameras (and lenses) will be the enthusiasts and pros . And there's probably less of those than the camera makers hoped for. I mean the new FF mirrorless cameras were discounted shockingly soon after release. That would not be necessary if people were really into them. It used to be you had to wait a year for a price drop (or at least put some effort into finding deals in the meantime). Now you just wait 2-3 months for the initial hype to die down and snatch one at a discount.

 

[oldtimes]

M43 is a good comprehensive system but it's def not for everybody. There's a reason it has small market share

True.

I'd like to add that for (most likely) 75+% of the people now shooting a larger sensor format camera m43 is more then sufficient - and sometimes even the better option - but misunderstanding, misinformation, uninformed sales people, etc result in m43 never ever being considered an option.

I fail to see how a system with a smaller sensor that is also more expensive (and sometimes larger bodies) than an average system with bigger sensor is a better option for those 75+% of people. Less imaging surface at a higher price is better, how?

 

[George1958]

I think if any manufacturer built their cameras to the same standard as the EM1 MKii and X they would be circa the same price. Costing is more than the price to sensor size relationship. I would take the EM1 mkii in adverse weather over any other camera. The build quality and tech is of a very high order. Therein lies the reason for price.

Its a shame that most discussions focus on M4/3 as being a system that is limited by its sensor size. It is as if our ideas and thinking have not kept up with the tech. The limiting factor is not sensor size. We have not yet met he ceiling on what these cameras can achieve. One only has to look at how much can be done with a tiny smart phone sensor. By comparison M4/3 sensors are huge.

Putting that to one side, its an education to see what others have been able to to do with these cameras. There is some amazing photography out there that speaks to the capability of these cameras when paired with good photographic skills. Most often it is the latter that needs the attention. Its far to convenient to blame the camera for what is in most instances poor technique on our part.

 

[oldtimes]

Putting that to one side, its an education to see what others have been able to to do with these cameras. There is some amazing photography out there that speaks to the capability of these cameras when paired with good photographic skills. Most often it is the latter that needs the attention. Its far to convenient to blame the camera for what is in most instances poor technique on our part.

I agree. Some of my friends have m43 systems and have pretty fantastic shots to show, but there is a limitation specially when it comes to depth of field and 3-d pop which seems hard to achieve on m43. Doable, but with more effort than a larger sensor. Personally I also shoot quite a bit on higher iso where I find the m43 als struggles a bit. But yeah, the skill is in the hands of the shooter

 

[Astrotripper]

I fail to see how a system with a smaller sensor that is also more expensive [...] than an average system with bigger sensor

Examples?

You can have a 4K shooting weather sealed MFT kit (including lens) with IBIS for 700 EUR or so. How much do you have to pay Sony, Canon or Fuji to get that? Hint: Sony and Canon don't offer such a thing and Fuji costs over 1100 EUR just for the body.

And on the low end, they are all about the same price point.

I'm guessing you are comparing MFT flagships to entry level APS-C models? I guess that's not much of a surprise considering that Fuji is the only one in APS-C world making what one could call a flagship model?

--
My photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/astrotripper2000/

 

[pocoloco]

M43 is a good comprehensive system but it's def not for everybody. There's a reason it has small market share

True.

I'd like to add that for (most likely) 75+% of the people now shooting a larger sensor format camera m43 is more then sufficient - and sometimes even the better option - but misunderstanding, misinformation, uninformed sales people, etc result in m43 never ever being considered an option.

I fail to see how a system with a smaller sensor that is also more expensive (and sometimes larger bodies) than an average system with bigger sensor is a better option for those 75+% of people. Less imaging surface at a higher price is better, how?

Reality is that it it can't be beat given the size/weight/price compared to larger sensors (maybe aps comes closer but only Fuji takes their system serious).

I have an allround travel package of 3 bodies, and three lenses a 7-14mm F4, a 12-40mm f2.8 and a 40-150mm f2.8. this gives me a range of 14 to 300 MM with 24 to 300 covered with f2.8 lenses.

This package fits into a small backpack, is half the size of a FF setup with f2.8 lenses and is 2 to 3 times less expensive.

For 90% of my shots I want large DoF so, that characteristic of smaller sensors is excellent for my purposes.

This setup is more then enough for most people, and will give you excellent IQ!

Of course, if you want the best of the best for shallow DoF portraits with just one eye in focus and the tip of the nose out focus (I can do that as well with the above setup by the way) or shoot high DR landscape and need to push the shadows a lot in post, and maybe low light sports an you are willing to shell out for a 300mm f4 Canikony, yes... FF may be the better option for you.

But how many of the people shooting photos have that as an absolute requirement or how many have hit the limits of a smaller sensor system?

That number I believe is a pretty low!

So... for most, they will not hit the system limits and they will not experience a lower IQ. But they will have a smaller, lighter less expensive system. I know I have.

I am not stating smaller sensor systems like m43 are better then FF. It has it strengths and weaknesses. So do FF. I am just saying, giving its strengths and weaknesses, m43 is more then enough more a lot of people that are currently buying into a FF system, and they may be paying more then is necessary, carry more weight (or less lenses because they can't pack all the lenses they want to) then is necessary.

And you know, if you just like the big guns... it is a free country (ah... perhaps no longer the USA)... you can buy whatever you like and who is to say that is wrong!

 

[pocoloco]

Putting that to one side, its an education to see what others have been able to to do with these cameras. There is some amazing photography out there that speaks to the capability of these cameras when paired with good photographic skills. Most often it is the latter that needs the attention. Its far to convenient to blame the camera for what is in most instances poor technique on our part.

I agree. Some of my friends have m43 systems and have pretty fantastic shots to show, but there is a limitation specially when it comes to depth of field and 3-d pop which seems hard to achieve on m43. Doable, but with more effort than a larger sensor. Personally I also shoot quite a bit on higher iso where I find the m43 als struggles a bit. But yeah, the skill is in the hands of the shooter

Of course, every systems has its weaknesses and strengths. You gotta learn them and know how to cope with them. How to get shallow depth on m43 for a portrait shoot? How to get large depth on a street shot in low light with a reasonably fast shutter speed on FF? Both are challenging!

Note that if you shoot high iso on FF probably handheld, to get the same shot on m43 with the same look-and-feel, read DoF, you can shoot on an aperture twice as fast, so you can lower the ISO on m43 also by two stops! I believe there still will be a slight advantage for FF but it is not as dramatic as most people will make you believe it is.

3D pop is more of a lens quality thing. Buy good lenses that have great microcontrast, and you will see you images pop. Maybe most APS systems will struggle because those ecosystems do not have the priority of the Canikonys of this world. Of course Fuji is delivering an excellent lens line up!

In the end, know what the system can or can't do for you, and pick the one that suits your shooting style the best, be it 1", mft, ff, medium format or what ever

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

M43 is a good comprehensive system but it's def not for everybody. There's a reason it has small market share

True.

I'd like to add that for (most likely) 75+% of the people now shooting a larger sensor format camera m43 is more then sufficient - and sometimes even the better option - but misunderstanding, misinformation, uninformed sales people, etc result in m43 never ever being considered an option.

I fail to see how a system with a smaller sensor that is also more expensive (and sometimes larger bodies) than an average system with bigger sensor is a better option for those 75+% of people. Less imaging surface at a higher price is better, how?

Reality is that it it can't be beat given the size/weight/price compared to larger sensors (maybe aps comes closer but only Fuji takes their system serious).

I have an allround travel package of 3 bodies, and three lenses a 7-14mm F4, a 12-40mm f2.8 and a 40-150mm f2.8. this gives me a range of 14 to 300 MM with 24 to 300 covered with f2.8 lenses.

This package fits into a small backpack, is half the size of a FF setup with f2.8 lenses and is 2 to 3 times less expensive.

For 90% of my shots I want large DoF so, that characteristic of smaller sensors is excellent for my purposes.

This setup is more then enough for most people, and will give you excellent IQ!

Of course, if you want the best of the best for shallow DoF portraits with just one eye in focus and the tip of the nose out focus (I can do that as well with the above setup by the way) or shoot high DR landscape and need to push the shadows a lot in post, and maybe low light sports an you are willing to shell out for a 300mm f4 Canikony, yes... FF may be the better option for you.

But how many of the people shooting photos have that as an absolute requirement or how many have hit the limits of a smaller sensor system?

That number I believe is a pretty low!

So... for most, they will not hit the system limits and they will not experience a lower IQ. But they will have a smaller, lighter less expensive system. I know I have.

I am not stating smaller sensor systems like m43 are better then FF. It has it strengths and weaknesses. So do FF. I am just saying, giving its strengths and weaknesses, m43 is more then enough more a lot of people that are currently buying into a FF system, and they may be paying more then is necessary, carry more weight (or less lenses because they can't pack all the lenses they want to) then is necessary.

And you know, if you just like the big guns... it is a free country (ah... perhaps no longer the USA)... you can buy whatever you like and who is to say that is wrong!

isn't the EOS-M APS-C?

 

[Kharan]

I think if any manufacturer built their cameras to the same standard as the EM1 MKii and X they would be circa the same price. Costing is more than the price to sensor size relationship.

Probably, although Canon can make substantially cheaper gear to the same specification than other manufacturers, so I wouldn't discount it. I mean, they never will make it, but they could.

I would take the EM1 mkii in adverse weather over any other camera. The build quality and tech is of a very high order. Therein lies the reason for price.

I don't buy it. I got burned by an E-M1.1 (rear dial failure, strap lug, EVF spots, etc.). Olympus' build quality just isn't the same from the E-5 days. Nikon's mirrorless cameras are just as good, if not better, in that regard.

Its a shame that most discussions focus on M4/3 as being a system that is limited by its sensor size. It is as if our ideas and thinking have not kept up with the tech. The limiting factor is not sensor size. We have not yet met he ceiling on what these cameras can achieve.

Yes we have. The quantum efficiency of imaging sensors is over 90% these days; there isn't much more left to squeeze out of the silicon anymore. Olympus aren't releasing huge, expensive f/1.2 lenses just because they can. Computational photography can make some advances possible, certainly, but cameras will always lag phones considerably (because heat management in these devices is far more complex, they don't use state-of-the-art sensors and processors, they can't equip multiple imagers, etc.).

One only has to look at how much can be done with a tiny smart phone sensor. By comparison M4/3 sensors are huge.

Putting that to one side, its an education to see what others have been able to to do with these cameras. There is some amazing photography out there that speaks to the capability of these cameras when paired with good photographic skills. Most often it is the latter that needs the attention. Its far to convenient to blame the camera for what is in most instances poor technique on our part.

I won't argue with that, except in one sense - sometimes, it's not about poor technique, but rather convenience. It's simply more convenient to shoot with a larger sensor that has more dynamic range and low light performance for a lot of people. One doesn't need to stack, stitch or merge photos to obtain the same result, and that can be a great time saver.

 

[pocoloco]

M43 is a good comprehensive system but it's def not for everybody. There's a reason it has small market share

True.

I'd like to add that for (most likely) 75+% of the people now shooting a larger sensor format camera m43 is more then sufficient - and sometimes even the better option - but misunderstanding, misinformation, uninformed sales people, etc result in m43 never ever being considered an option.

I fail to see how a system with a smaller sensor that is also more expensive (and sometimes larger bodies) than an average system with bigger sensor is a better option for those 75+% of people. Less imaging surface at a higher price is better, how?

Reality is that it it can't be beat given the size/weight/price compared to larger sensors (maybe aps comes closer but only Fuji takes their system serious).

I have an allround travel package of 3 bodies, and three lenses a 7-14mm F4, a 12-40mm f2.8 and a 40-150mm f2.8. this gives me a range of 14 to 300 MM with 24 to 300 covered with f2.8 lenses.

This package fits into a small backpack, is half the size of a FF setup with f2.8 lenses and is 2 to 3 times less expensive.

For 90% of my shots I want large DoF so, that characteristic of smaller sensors is excellent for my purposes.

This setup is more then enough for most people, and will give you excellent IQ!

Of course, if you want the best of the best for shallow DoF portraits with just one eye in focus and the tip of the nose out focus (I can do that as well with the above setup by the way) or shoot high DR landscape and need to push the shadows a lot in post, and maybe low light sports an you are willing to shell out for a 300mm f4 Canikony, yes... FF may be the better option for you.

But how many of the people shooting photos have that as an absolute requirement or how many have hit the limits of a smaller sensor system?

That number I believe is a pretty low!

So... for most, they will not hit the system limits and they will not experience a lower IQ. But they will have a smaller, lighter less expensive system. I know I have.

I am not stating smaller sensor systems like m43 are better then FF. It has it strengths and weaknesses. So do FF. I am just saying, giving its strengths and weaknesses, m43 is more then enough more a lot of people that are currently buying into a FF system, and they may be paying more then is necessary, carry more weight (or less lenses because they can't pack all the lenses they want to) then is necessary.

And you know, if you just like the big guns... it is a free country (ah... perhaps no longer the USA)... you can buy whatever you like and who is to say that is wrong!

isn't the EOS-M APS-C?

Yes. And how would you consider the Canon lens lineup? As far as I can tell, no f2.8 zoom. How many fast canon primes for it exist? As far as I know - and I could be wrong - you don't have a lot of choice. And do you believe that this will improve? So... even this might be a choice that might be good enough for some. It always will be, but I do not consider this to be a mature ecosystem, and I do not have the faith that Canon will invest in it to become mature.