AWT
Leading Member
Looking at all the talk of Canon, Nikon and Sony market shares for DSLRs it seems that 4/3 is going to remain a niche format. Is it suffering from the proven relationship of sensor size vs noise?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is Four Thirds in trouble?
- Thread starter AWT
- Start date
J
Jon Ragnarsson
Guest
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
4/3 suffered from expensive lenses at the start, and not many of them. Thats been improved a lot in the last year or so.
As for the noise element..well clearly it has some disadvantage to a degree. Not enough to make it unworthy.
The much talked about E-3 and E-500 replacement will be critical. If it doesnt turn up..then I see some users defecting. If it does how will it hold up? Who can say...
4/3 was always a bad idea, esp when every major player went APS-C...
Will Oly slide into the late 80's 90's with a defunct OM system? Lets wait and see.
--
Franka T.L.
Veteran Member
No, that is it had nothing to do with sensor size or noise, admittingly that noise in 4/3 are worse than like competetions.
Yes, 4/3 is indeed in trouble considering its long market presence ( it has been around longer than the like of Pentax and Sony/KM ) and yet it had not been able to achive any healthy market share and actually seen slowly losing ground. What we see here is a good concept, great prospect, and solid technical prowness and basis that are not materializing into real world product. What Oly had fail is delivering a total and completet lineup for the market to choose from. And price a lot of their product outside of market norm and acceptable threshold.
The recent Sony market push just indicate also how marketing and brand awareness being a major factor, and Pentax surge of market share in view of the K100D is indication of how logical, quality product that made market sense. The 4/3 is lacking in almost every area of these concern. It does not help either by the lack of any system varieties and depth. So far the one hit from the stable is the E-500 because it does price right, work well enough for its intended market and price bracket. It however cannot prevent the 4/3 from other troubles, and withouit much to expand and move on for 4/3 users. Its not hard to see why there is a lack of interest to further buying into the system. For 4/3 to work, Oly need to be able to convince already 4/3 user to stay and buy more, expand, and upgrade ( but where is those lens and bodies for them ) and to convince new customer to go with the system ( again choose, choose, and choose ).
4/3 is in trouble not because of any technical reason, but marklet deployment and product marketing are slowly but surely doing it .
--
Franka
Yes, 4/3 is indeed in trouble considering its long market presence ( it has been around longer than the like of Pentax and Sony/KM ) and yet it had not been able to achive any healthy market share and actually seen slowly losing ground. What we see here is a good concept, great prospect, and solid technical prowness and basis that are not materializing into real world product. What Oly had fail is delivering a total and completet lineup for the market to choose from. And price a lot of their product outside of market norm and acceptable threshold.
The recent Sony market push just indicate also how marketing and brand awareness being a major factor, and Pentax surge of market share in view of the K100D is indication of how logical, quality product that made market sense. The 4/3 is lacking in almost every area of these concern. It does not help either by the lack of any system varieties and depth. So far the one hit from the stable is the E-500 because it does price right, work well enough for its intended market and price bracket. It however cannot prevent the 4/3 from other troubles, and withouit much to expand and move on for 4/3 users. Its not hard to see why there is a lack of interest to further buying into the system. For 4/3 to work, Oly need to be able to convince already 4/3 user to stay and buy more, expand, and upgrade ( but where is those lens and bodies for them ) and to convince new customer to go with the system ( again choose, choose, and choose ).
4/3 is in trouble not because of any technical reason, but marklet deployment and product marketing are slowly but surely doing it .
--
Franka
Most users don't PP their shots, so when you get images that have a ratio of 4:3 instead of 3:2 for a 6x4 print, and see the print with a crazy white margin (or cut), you wonder what this is.
The whle world goes 3:2 or 16:9 (screens), and 4/3 looks oldfashioned compared.
Not to talk about the rest (no mechanical focus, small VF, lenses).
ralf
The whle world goes 3:2 or 16:9 (screens), and 4/3 looks oldfashioned compared.
Not to talk about the rest (no mechanical focus, small VF, lenses).
ralf
Cephalotus
Veteran Member
What are you people talking about ?
In FY 2004 Olympus sold 100.000 fourthirds DSLRs
in FY 2005 Olympus sold 250.000 fourthirds DSLRs (+150%)
They predict to sell 400.000 Olympus fourthirds DSLRs in FY 2006 (+60%)
Panasonic will sell some Panasonic fourthirds DSLRs in FY 2006, too
So for me it looks that fourthirds has gained a significant higher market from FY 2004 to FY 2005 (the growth rate is higher than the growth rate of overall DSLR sales) and they predict and even higher market share for FY 2006.
Looks ok for me. They are not the biggest player and I assume that Sony will take their 3rd place in market share (at least for the number of DSLRs sold, lenses are a different game), but does that mean trouble for them?
I doubt so.
The imaging sector was healthy and profitable in the last quartal. DSLRs are only a small part of Olympus' imaging segment now (3% if I remember correctly) so that does not say to much of course.
But they want to rise the DSLR part of their own imaging sector from 3% to 20% in the coming years, so for me it looks that Olympus has big faith in their fourthirds system.
So does Panasonic/Matsushita and Leica
(Sigma, Sanyo, Fuji and Kodak are currently the other members of the fourthirds party)
Olympus will show new E-system products on 14/09 and it is rumored more or less officially that they will give some "information" about the E-1 successor at Photokina.
Looks like a healthy system to me.
Market share in Japanese market during two months does not say anything about worldwide market share during one year, especially if you use two months where three big players did announce or introduce new cameras and two didn't.
best regards
Cephalotus
Veteran Member
my screen uses 4:3, my projector uses 4:3, my digicam uses 4:3 and print format does not matter anything here in Germany beacuse you can print any apsect ratio which you desire without any margins. That's how the print machines do work here.
The common DIN formats for your own printer do use 1:1,41 format, which is neither 2:3 nor 3:4.
Imho 2:3 vs 3:4 doesn't matter anything, it is just personal preference. I had both and for me neither is better than the other. 4:3 is more comfortable for me, beacuse it fits most of my other stuff but ymmv.
I do not see it as a disadvantage.
The common DIN formats for your own printer do use 1:1,41 format, which is neither 2:3 nor 3:4.
Imho 2:3 vs 3:4 doesn't matter anything, it is just personal preference. I had both and for me neither is better than the other. 4:3 is more comfortable for me, beacuse it fits most of my other stuff but ymmv.
I do not see it as a disadvantage.
Cephalotus
Veteran Member
I do agree, that the system still misses some things, but if you have a look at Sony and Pentax where is the upgrade path there? Do they have more than one successful model? They don't have either.
And imho the E-330 seems to have been successful, too. It was never intended to be a mass market seller (Olympus claimed that they wanted to sell 100.000 alltogether) and at least in my region supply is still low and prices are still high. Both not an indication for a camera not selling as well als planned.
And there is also the old E-1 which is still ok for a niche market. A cheap and reasonable lightweight camera body with selas, 100% viewfinder, shutter lifetime > 150.00 and so on.
It also belongs and adds diversity to the 4/3 system, no matter if it sells at 100.000 per months or only at 1000 per month.
(As does a Canon 1Ds II camera)
And now there is also the Panasonic L1, Olympus will probably announce another (entry level?) DSLR at 14/9 and it is said that Leica will maybe show their own 4/3 camera (based on L1?)...
The system is growing. It still lacks in some parts (especially the up to date high end body is missing at the moment), but here fourthirds is in good company.
Mark Thornton
Veteran Member
If you can't manage to get your prints in a format other than 6x4 you probably shouldn't be buying a DSLR of any description!
Still photography is not the same as video, therefore the wide(r) formats popular for video are not always appropriate for a print. In my opinion most vertical shots work better with a more square aspect ratio than 3:2.
Still photography is not the same as video, therefore the wide(r) formats popular for video are not always appropriate for a print. In my opinion most vertical shots work better with a more square aspect ratio than 3:2.
Ben Herrmann
Forum Pro
chiming in on stuff they probably don't know about. I love it when non 4/3 users have to get in their negative remarks...i.e., "4/3 is doomed," or "it was a bad format to start with,", etc. I love it even more when all of these forum jumpers - many of which never had a 4/3 camera - start speculating on the demise of this format.
I've had so many different digital cameras over the past 4 - 5 years, that it's scary (41). I've settled on to the Olympus 4/3 system just like many of you have chosen to settle on the Nikon or Canon systems. There will be room for everyone. I love the Olympus tonality and their dust buster feature among a variety of other features. BTW the Oly dustbuster is a superior feature and works quite well as the reviews will eventually bear out when comparisons are made.
Demise...my "A_s!" Gosh, does it ever end? Olympus will be around for quite some time, along with some of the other makes. It never fails to amaze me...
--
Have a great day!
Ben
I've had so many different digital cameras over the past 4 - 5 years, that it's scary (41). I've settled on to the Olympus 4/3 system just like many of you have chosen to settle on the Nikon or Canon systems. There will be room for everyone. I love the Olympus tonality and their dust buster feature among a variety of other features. BTW the Oly dustbuster is a superior feature and works quite well as the reviews will eventually bear out when comparisons are made.
Demise...my "A_s!" Gosh, does it ever end? Olympus will be around for quite some time, along with some of the other makes. It never fails to amaze me...
--
Have a great day!
Ben
Paul H46473
Leading Member
Four Thirds has been in trouble for a long time, though many choose to deny it. What stores are currently selling the heralded Panasonic Four Thirds camera? The Fuji Four Thirds camera and accessories? The Kodak offering? Sanyo? I'm afraid Four Thirds may be to digital cameras what the Stanley Steamer was to automobiles.
Does Four Thirds occupy a successful niche market? Only in the same sense there's a niche market for mule-drawn ploughs.
My Oly E-300 just passed out of warranty, too.
Bram de Mooij
Leading Member
We will see.
I already have plenty of Oly
No need to switch to caninonyca for the coming 5 years, or so
I think they come up with something. No hurry.
--
http://fotobram.nl
I already have plenty of Oly
No need to switch to caninonyca for the coming 5 years, or so
I think they come up with something. No hurry.
--
http://fotobram.nl
Tim the Grey
Veteran Member
The nay sayers and doom cryers are out again.
8^)
My 4/3 kit is alive, well, and working fine thank you.
--
8^)
My 4/3 kit is alive, well, and working fine thank you.
--
- ######
- ####_O Tim Yorath
- #### />
- #### @ UK.
- ### \
Chris_in_Osaka
Veteran Member
Most of the world print's on A4 sized paper, with the exception of places like the US where inches are still used (still haven't grasped that metric system!). The last time I checked, 4:3's printed fine on A4, certainly better than the 16:9 ratio I can select on my fuji f810. Do you know of any 16:9 ratio paper? post a link if you do.
Exactly which cameras are you refering to here? Which have you used?
As an Olympus owner, I'm aware that there are less lenses than, for example, Canon, but I'm also aware that it's a system built from scratch, not riding on the shirt tales of something that was already there.Plus the lenses they have are top rate!
http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/news/2006b/nr060825eisae.cfm
Besides, how many Canon owners use the cr* py kit lens they got with their 35mm rebel back in 1990?
--
E-1 and E-300, 30mm Sigma, 50mm, 11-22mm, 14-45mm, 14-54mm, 18-180mm, 50-200mm, 8mm fisheye, FL-36. Fujifilm f810, Sony Dsc-v3
Tim the Grey
Veteran Member
I use 4/3, and I crop when wanting to emphasise tall or wide.
But that's my call...
--
But that's my call...
--
- ######
- ####_O Tim Yorath
- #### />
- #### @ UK.
- ### \
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
The idea is good, but the market moves very fast.
If Oly have nothing exciting at the press launch on the 14th, THEN 4/3rds will be in trouble.
I'm fairly sure they DO have something exciting to announce though, even if it isn't what I want.
Long term, as chips in general go smaller (making 35mm and eventually even APS-C more specialised and expensive to make) and chip technology improves (making noise levels a non issue) 4/3rds will seem too large, not too small.
Righ now the much moaned about noise level is because most of the Oly cameras are using CCD chips, with their inherent LOWER noise, rather than CMOS and the load of internal processing that implies to keep noise down. The result is that the Oly delivers a reasonably quiet beautifully toned image that you can choose to noise filter or not, whereas the competition tends to produce a murky over-processed but very QUIET mess. The former LOOKS best, but camera reviewers prefer the latter (noise is measurable, sort of, so moaning about it makes reviewers look objective - or anal, dpensing on POV)
Size? With about 30% less sensor area, ceteris paribus, 4/3rds will always be SLIGHTLY noisier (not a big deal, to me). But with a far higher magnification, the lens are about half the size for the same FoV. That IS a big deal to me.
So 4/3rds is the right idea. Whether Oly have the muscle and marketing know how to lever it - we'll see.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
If Oly have nothing exciting at the press launch on the 14th, THEN 4/3rds will be in trouble.
I'm fairly sure they DO have something exciting to announce though, even if it isn't what I want.
Long term, as chips in general go smaller (making 35mm and eventually even APS-C more specialised and expensive to make) and chip technology improves (making noise levels a non issue) 4/3rds will seem too large, not too small.
Righ now the much moaned about noise level is because most of the Oly cameras are using CCD chips, with their inherent LOWER noise, rather than CMOS and the load of internal processing that implies to keep noise down. The result is that the Oly delivers a reasonably quiet beautifully toned image that you can choose to noise filter or not, whereas the competition tends to produce a murky over-processed but very QUIET mess. The former LOOKS best, but camera reviewers prefer the latter (noise is measurable, sort of, so moaning about it makes reviewers look objective - or anal, dpensing on POV)
Size? With about 30% less sensor area, ceteris paribus, 4/3rds will always be SLIGHTLY noisier (not a big deal, to me). But with a far higher magnification, the lens are about half the size for the same FoV. That IS a big deal to me.
So 4/3rds is the right idea. Whether Oly have the muscle and marketing know how to lever it - we'll see.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
goorooj
Well-known member
with DIN paper, i have to crop when i´m using 3:2, i have to crop when i´m using 4:3...
olympus is selling 43% of their cameras in europe, only 26% in us ( i think that were the the numbers, too lazy to look them up again ), maybe becaue the "letter" format is closer to 3:2 than the DIN format, i don´t know. and i don´t care.
maybe there are more lenses to choose from with canon, but are they all worth even mentioning?
you can maybe have not that many different lenses to choose from, but what good is having to choose from 10 different lenses with the same focal length except spamming forums?
i KNOW there´s a 14-45 and a 14-54, and that the 14-45 is not as good, but much cheaper than the 14-54. so it´s an easy decision, price or quality, isn´t it? now there´s a third excellent lense from leica which covers that focal length, but with image stabilizer built in. more choices: i´m going for the quality one, do i need an OIS or not?
i don´t have to choose from 10 different lenses in the 14-50 range, and to find out which one of the 5 cheap lenses is the best for my sensor size.
and i don´t want to.
and as far as i´m concerned the system has more lenses to offer even now, and even more in a year when i look at the leica and sigma roadmap, than i ever will need...
the only thing lacking the system is a pro body. but how many users actually buy a pro body? and how many buy entry level dslr´s?
of course i want a pro body for 4:3, and of course the excellent lenses need a pro body to show what they can.
and there´s one coming sooner or later.
i´m in no hurry.
--
e-1 14-54
olympus is selling 43% of their cameras in europe, only 26% in us ( i think that were the the numbers, too lazy to look them up again ), maybe becaue the "letter" format is closer to 3:2 than the DIN format, i don´t know. and i don´t care.
maybe there are more lenses to choose from with canon, but are they all worth even mentioning?
you can maybe have not that many different lenses to choose from, but what good is having to choose from 10 different lenses with the same focal length except spamming forums?
i KNOW there´s a 14-45 and a 14-54, and that the 14-45 is not as good, but much cheaper than the 14-54. so it´s an easy decision, price or quality, isn´t it? now there´s a third excellent lense from leica which covers that focal length, but with image stabilizer built in. more choices: i´m going for the quality one, do i need an OIS or not?
i don´t have to choose from 10 different lenses in the 14-50 range, and to find out which one of the 5 cheap lenses is the best for my sensor size.
and i don´t want to.
and as far as i´m concerned the system has more lenses to offer even now, and even more in a year when i look at the leica and sigma roadmap, than i ever will need...
the only thing lacking the system is a pro body. but how many users actually buy a pro body? and how many buy entry level dslr´s?
of course i want a pro body for 4:3, and of course the excellent lenses need a pro body to show what they can.
and there´s one coming sooner or later.
i´m in no hurry.
--
e-1 14-54
Olympusaurus
Well-known member
4/3 in trouble? I doubt it. As said before the biggest issue to date is marketing the Oly cameras. Now that Panasonic is onboard 4/3 will grow. Other companies may join in later as support grows. Fact is 4/3 is a good standard to choose for companies developing a SLR or using another company's body. Less development = more profit.
As for the lens range it is more than sufficient. I can affordably get a 35mm equivalent focal length range from 22-560mm with all lenses under $850 and all with an aperture of f2.8-3.5 (teleconverter used from 401-560 slows it down a stop). Zuiko lenses are above the quality of most equivilent lenses from other manufacturers.
The dustbuster is now slightly altered (stolen) for Canon and Sony and others to come. Question I have is why did Oly give away their live-view niche.
I think that 4/3 will catch on, Olympus will continue to invent new technologies in photography, and I hope the marketing improves. A new professional SLR is definitely overdue and will be welcomed.
--
Cheers,
Olympusaurus
Olympus EVOLT E-500
As for the lens range it is more than sufficient. I can affordably get a 35mm equivalent focal length range from 22-560mm with all lenses under $850 and all with an aperture of f2.8-3.5 (teleconverter used from 401-560 slows it down a stop). Zuiko lenses are above the quality of most equivilent lenses from other manufacturers.
The dustbuster is now slightly altered (stolen) for Canon and Sony and others to come. Question I have is why did Oly give away their live-view niche.
I think that 4/3 will catch on, Olympus will continue to invent new technologies in photography, and I hope the marketing improves. A new professional SLR is definitely overdue and will be welcomed.
--
Cheers,
Olympusaurus
Olympus EVOLT E-500
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum