Reading mode: Light Dark

Is Four Thirds in trouble?

Go to last post
Don't really care. The system works for me, and as with bicycles, cars, aircraft, not every machine can do every job.

Robert Mcnamara was big on turning fighters into bombers. That was stupid. Expecting one camera to be everything and be everything well is also stupid.
--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com

Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820

Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5
 
Franka T.L. wrote:
Yes, 4/3 is indeed in trouble considering its long market presence
Franka T.L. said:
( it has been around longer than the like of Pentax and Sony/KM )
--
Franka
Click to expand...
Ummm... No, it hasn't. Konica Minolta/Sony and Pentax use the same lenses they did with the film cameras, so there's no comparison at all.

4:3 is entirely new, which means starting from a user base of zero.

By the way, comparing Oly to Konica Minolta is also kind of out there, because Minolta just lost their camera division entirely. They couldn't make it work, even with a user base of lenses.
--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com

Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820

Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5
 
Blah blah blah

Paul H wrote:
I'm afraid Four Thirds
Paul H46473 said:
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.

Click to expand...
--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com

Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820

Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5
 
Mr Ralf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who prints only 6x4 prints with a DSLR?
Look at the other standard print sizes (in the US):

Aspect ratio closer to 4/3:
  • 4x5
  • 5x7
  • 8x10
  • 11x14
  • 16x20
  • 20x24
Aspect ratio closer to 3:2:
  • 4x6
  • 12x18
I rest my case.

GB
 
Everyone is outselling them hand over fist....even Pentax...
--

 
Given the bigger size of the Canonikon sensors they'll use up their silicon reserves two times faster and then Oly will sell and laugh :)haha

No, seriously, you shouldn't believe everything they say on TV these days. Who said that 4/3 was doomed? The Canon and Nikon users... aha, they're some kind of prophets or what?

Well, the sensor is hidden in the camera and, to be frank, I think that some people don't even know that there is one. What they see is the camera, its size and the final images. So, let me tell you this:

1. The 4/3 images are just stunning even with the cheapest 4/3 lens.

2. With the same sized lens and a smaller camera than a Canonikon system you can shoot 2 f-stops faster (yes lens of the same size - 2 f-stops faster). Do you still think that the noise advantage goes to Canon/Nikon?

Nothing more to say.

Ivan
 
Dunno... I was shooting at 1600 asa last night, have to run thru Noise Ninja 2nite and see whats we gots.

Actually it doesn't look that bad so fat. Soem red sparklies, we'll see how they fall out.
--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com

Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820

Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5
 
AWT said:
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?
Click to expand...
No. The most dominant sensor size is the 1.6x "crop factor" with 1.5x close behind. The less than one stop area differenct from these two formats to 4/3" just isn't that great.

The other side of the coin is that the inherent benefits of 4/3" over APS-C aren't that great either.

In the end it will come down to marketing and the design of the particular cameras that are developed for the various formats. The technical differences between APS-C and 4/3" formats just aren't that significant.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
It seems the E-330 has not taken the world by storm... perhaps Olympus' vision of "live view" will not be as popular as hoped for... plus the continued absence of the E-1 replacement means no (new) high quality 4/3 camera is currently on the market.

So yes, it does appear as if Oly's 4/3 effort is in for a rough ride. Olympus is a large and healthy company with a strong demand for their medical products so there is no sense of corporate doom.

The question is whether they will do to 4/3 what they did to OM - stop (or greatly slow down) 4/3 development and just sell off remaining stock (of very nice but expensive lenses) over a couple of years. While the tide is currently rising and lifting nearly every boat in the DSLR world... Olympus can continue with low market share and still see revenue maintained. However, when the day comes and the market no longer grows and some fierce cost reductions come in then Olympus will need to cut bait or really go trawling.

-gt
 
Barry,

I did extensive research on DSLRs before deciding in which direction to go as far as my photography equipment is concerned.

What I found is that there's not a large range of lenses to choose from for the 4/3 systems.

All quality lenses for 4/3 systems are manufactured by Olympus and a small of them..
http://www.dcviews.com/lenses/Olympus-lenses.htm

Four lenses two of which are very good lenses are from Olympus, selling at very affordable price; These are 17-45/15-54/40-150/50-200. The rest are expensive, in fact more expensive than those from Canon and Nikon.

Sigma is also producing some lenses for 4/3 systemsbut a very small number, and not of great quality. Recently, Leica announced it will produce 3 prime lenses for 4/3 systems, 50/85 mm probably. We shall see.

Naturally, people will be choosing Canon and Nikons, for several reasons. Large community, good cameras, many lenses: new, old, second hand etc.
Barry Fitzgerald said:
AWT said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

--

Click to expand...
 
If you had or used 41 cameras in the last 5 years you should know that there's more to a digital camera than dustbuster. You can't choose a camera just because it comes with the dustbuster. New Canon has introduced this mechanism in its new XT camera and the others will follow.
Ben Herrmann said:
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
Click to expand...
 
joey_ said:
Barry,

I did extensive research on DSLRs before deciding in which
direction to go as far as my photography equipment is concerned.
What I found is that there's not a large range of lenses to choose
from for the 4/3 systems.
Click to expand...
Compared to 3/2 cameras, the range is more limited. But at least Olympus has increased the number from several years ago.

Lack of 3rd party support is the real problem here.
joey_ said:
All quality lenses for 4/3 systems are manufactured by Olympus and
a small of them..
http://www.dcviews.com/lenses/Olympus-lenses.htm
Click to expand...
Indeed
joey_ said:
Four lenses two of which are very good lenses are from Olympus,
selling at very affordable price; These are
17-45/15-54/40-150/50-200. The rest are expensive, in fact more
expensive than those from Canon and Nikon.
Click to expand...
That is correct.
joey_ said:
Sigma is also producing some lenses for 4/3 systemsbut a very small
number, and not of great quality. Recently, Leica announced it will
produce 3 prime lenses for 4/3 systems, 50/85 mm probably. We shall
see.
Click to expand...
Dont know about the quality...I hear that few of the lenses are out and for sale..its slow going.
joey_ said:
Naturally, people will be choosing Canon and Nikons, for several
reasons. Large community, good cameras, many lenses: new, old,
second hand etc.
Click to expand...
That is one reason. Cost factor as you say for 4/3 lenses is not great. You have no Tamron either (and they make good lenses at various price points)..

I was being kind to 4/3....

No point thrusting the sword in all the way is there? There has to be some mercy...! lol

In honesty. The advantages of 4/3 are not a lot. Smaller lens sizes at the tele end....thats about it.

--

 
I don't know if the 4/3 is good or bad. At least it sells and people are using it. It has its place on the market. I know, I won't be using 4/3 cameras.
AWT said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Even Sigma is omitting some features from 4/3 lenses.

You find an interesting model from Sigma, for Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax. Somewhere in brackets: these features only present on lenses for Canon and Nikon. This shows that Sigma has higher priority in developing and manufacturing their lenses for Canon and Nikon than for any other brand.
Member said:
I was being kind to 4/3....

No point thrusting the sword in all the way is there? There has to
be some mercy...! lol

In honesty. The advantages of 4/3 are not a lot. Smaller lens sizes
at the tele end....thats about it.

--

Click to expand...
 
Hi greentoe,
greentoe said:
It seems the E-330 has not taken the world by storm... perhaps
Olympus' vision of "live view" will not be as popular as hoped
for... plus the continued absence of the E-1 replacement means no
(new) high quality 4/3 camera is currently on the market.
Click to expand...
That's what everyone said about Oly's dust busting sensor and now look Sony and Canon, they both add their variations to their cameras. If that's not validation about Oly's strategy I don't know what is. The question isn't whether or not Live View will be be a common feature in all DSLR's, the question is simply when.

Oly may not have the best high ISO performance, but they innovate and continue to produce quality tools with excellent image quality. I think they'll be around a while.

[snip]
greentoe said:
The question is whether they will do to 4/3 what they did to OM -
stop (or greatly slow down) 4/3 development and just sell off
remaining stock (of very nice but expensive lenses) over a couple
of years. While the tide is currently rising and lifting nearly
every boat in the DSLR world... Olympus can continue with low
market share and still see revenue maintained. However, when the
day comes and the market no longer grows and some fierce cost
reductions come in then Olympus will need to cut bait or really go
trawling.
Click to expand...
That day will be difficult on everyone. As such, I'd rather be invested in a company that is committed to innovation, but that's just me.

George

--
http://geohsia.smugmug.com
 
Louis,

How do you explain E-330's use of NMOS sensor and E-500 the CCD, and yet the latter produces less noise on its images?
Louis_Dobson said:
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)
Click to expand...
Louis_Dobson said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top