if M4/3 becomes really successful, what would olympus do?

I've just recently bought into Olympus system. E-620, 14-54mkI, 9-18mm, 40-150mkI and sigma 30mm. The equipments work really great. I like the result better than my friend's D90. (It's a great camera but Olympus color is way better for me)

The success of micro 4/3 makes me wonder if Olympus still have incentive to invest in 4/3 system. I read the comment of Thom Hogan in Micro 4/3 forum. He mentioned that M4/3 possibly has more future than 4/3 system. Not that I believed what he said. But, as a new olympus user, I sometimes feel uncertain when someone bash the system I use.

I just want to hear Olympus users' opinion about this. Will we see more of M4/3 than original 4/3? It seems reasonable for Olympus to focus on the product that makes money for them.

Just a question from me. At the moment, I'm very happy with E620 and all great lenses.

"just take your camera out and take good pictures, whatever the system is."

You are going to see more M43 and 4/3 cameras being released. M43 has grabbed the headline as it was the last camera to be released and it is also a new concept, but Olympus has stated over and over again that they see M43 as a complement to 4/3 and not a replacement.

Also, they have released the E-30, the E-620, the ZD 9-18mm, and updated the ZD14-54mm all within the last 12 months. I think all of those are signs that they are fully committed to 4/3.

Now if it turns out that they make loads of money with M43 and none with 4/3 then they may change their opinion in a few years, but there is no point arguing about what may happen in the long run if product cycles are only a year. This is not just true for Olympus but for any electronics/camera manufacturer.

With everything Oly did to 4/3 and with all those cameras released just few months ago, no way they'd call it a day anytime soon. Enjoy your equipment.

Oly sees m4/3 as amateur/enthusiast format with a pro in mind (as a second/spare camera).

--
http://ivframes.com

I think 4/3rds benefits from m4/3rds. I think together they draw a lot of interest. Knowing that my SHG glass can be used on a m4/3rds body is of interest.

I think Panasonic is doing a better job with m4/3rds than Olympus is. The EP-1 has brutally slow AF. The Panasonic is not amazingly fast, but much improved over the EP-1. I also like the m4/3rds lenses that Panasonic/Leica is bringing to market. The 45mm f/2.8 macro looks like it could be a nice option.

It has been rumored that Olympus is going to introduce 3-4 4/3rds prime lenses this fall/winter. If that happens then I think Olympus has a strong commitment to the classic 4/3rds system. I really want to see a 40mm to 45mm fast prime..... like f/1.2 fast or faster. When you see Olympus committing to lenses that appeal to a specific application you know they are committed. Right now they are just concentrating on general purpose zooms.

I think Olympus 4/3 is a safe investment, as digital camera investments go. However, I don't think any of us can see beyond 3 to 5 years as far as the future of photography.

My own bet is that the SLR mirror will go away. Within another generation or two mirrorless systems such as m4/3 will simply offer better function than can be achieved with a moving mirror and optical finder. As that happens, what will Canon and Nikon do with their SLR lines and all those legacy lenses?

I don't think you have to worry about Olympus suddenly abandoning 4/3, but I think we should expect a transition over the next few years with m4/3 becoming dominant.

Just my opinion.

Gato

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com

Remeber m4/3rds cameras can NOT have an optical view finder. They can never replace traditional DSLRs. Instead the are filling a giant hole. A lot of people want small cameras with DSLR quality...hence tha pancake and colaspable lenses. These just compliment 4/3rds and make a great pairing.

Personally, my goal is to have my primary E-620 and later get some thing like the GF-1 that supports some of my lenses that I can carry around and fit into a large pocket. The camera that gets used is the one you have with you. People are not always going to lug around a big bag-o-lenses.

three facts:

• Oly management said, its not the problem to assemble DSLRs like a E-620, the problem is to produce the components inside. In the future 75% of the components in 4/3 and m4/3 may be the same, so its no effort for Oly to "also" continue the 4/3 line even if m4/3 will be more successful.

• microfourthirds seems like it does not eat so much from the 4/3 market share - how many famous forum 4/3 slr users converted to m4/3 ? its only one, brian who now is more in the m4/3 forum. Microfourthirds seems to eat equally from all systems.

• But IF in 10 years microfourthirds will become very good, that means E-3 autofocus speed, and better viewfinder than in the G1, and only then I can see that microfourthirds eats fourthirds, then I have no big problem to use my 4/3 lenses on m4/3 and also make the transition to microfourthirds. But my DSLRs will not stop working then for some purposes.

cheers
Martin F.
----

• Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement.
• Please let me allow to post myL10 questions in the Oly SLR forum, because there is no Panny SLR forum and theL10 has the same olympus focussing system and sensor as theE-510.
• My equipment is in my Profile

m4/3 is more Panasonic's baby than Olympus'. And m4/3 is a unique system that appeals to people who aren't interested in Olympus DSLRs.

I don't see Olympus doing that much with m4/3 for the immediate future, except refreshing the model once a year. E-P2, then E-P3 a year later, etc.
--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com

I am not sure I understand fully the argument but Oly said that µ4/3 has an avantage in WA, while 4/3 in Tele.

Moreover we see that so far µ4/3 needs in camera firmware correction, so it ssems intrisincally worse, lenswise. I am not sure if this is connected with their lack of telecentricity, but I suspect it is.

Some argued also that CDAF will always be slower than PDAF, although it seems that Panny found a workaround.

Finally there is the refreshing rate of the Lcd/EVF which introduces a lag, which is unacceptable when shooting a sequence.

What if customers ignore these limits and prefer the lesser system? Oly might simply be tempted to make entry-level µ4/3, and make more expensive 4/3 cameras for more knowledgeable enthusiasts.

So there are three different issues to consider: the technological, the marketing, and the psychological one.

The latter is the most difficult to discuss: why should two systems be replaced by only one? It seems to me that there is no logic here: does someone imagine a 50-250 mm Zuiko zoom on a tiny µ4/3 camera? With what advantage?

I cannot imagine but insecurity being at the bottom of the belief that some good product must always be replaced by something newer, which might not be better, but worse.

At least there does not seem to be a general trend in going µicro for the other brands, so it seems that Oly forecast is right. They will coexist one next to the other.

But then you have people here who would rather have one destroy the other, and a few, in the other forum, who even sold all their previous gear.

But one could as well argue that they never needed a dSLR system in the first place.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

rieslingly_chinon said:

I read the comment of Thom Hogan in Micro 4/3 forum. He mentioned that M4/3 possibly has more future than 4/3 system.

Click to expand...

Thom Hogan ha ben talking own 4/3 SLRs forever, so I woul dnoty give mucvh weight ot his latest comments.

I see two things.

1. My best guess is that mirrorless system like m4/3 will take away a lot of sales from the low end of SLR's, but not from the more advanced DSLRs with good pentaprism viewfinders and fast phase detection AF (E-30, E-3, etc.)

2. If I am wrong on that, and m4/3 undermines all of 4/3 including the E-30 and E-3 class of cameras, then the same will happen to other mainstream DSLR systems; they too will be undermined by mirrrorless systems with the same sensor size, like Samsung's coming NX, and the Canon and Nikon versions that would have to follow once mirrorless systems start taking enough of their DSLR sales.

Either way, I doubt the outcome will not be specific to 4/3; I expect it will apply to all of the lower end of the DSLR price/performance range.

But as long as 4/3rds is also profitable I don't see them dropping it.

m4/3 is already successful, but its not a replacement for the real 4/3 simple because of lens and lensmount design. For example if the "beam-splitter" 3Chip Sensor really becomes reality your need space and telecentric design. This is possible with 4/3 but not with m4/3.

Timi

--
iThink, therefore iMac

maboleth said:

Oly sees m4/3 as amateur/enthusiast format with a pro in mind (as a second/spare camera).

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. The design of the E-P1, together with things Olympus officials have said, leads me to believe that the m4/3 is considered as much a "pro format" as 4/3, but geared toward a different niche. This was the case with the original Pen F series.

While the E-P1 has been purchased by many pros as a second/spare body, in many cases this was done with the idea that for certain situations the E-P1 was more suitable than a dslr.

This is the main reason why, no matter how successful m4/3 is for Olympus, they won't give up on 4/3. dslrs. They are two different types of cameras with different niches in mind.

--
http://saro_shots.photoshop.com

Well, its one cloud looming large over 4/3 and Olympus alright. On one hand, I am sure Olympus would want the Micro 4/3 to success, but that would require dedicating more effort there and this risk aliening the 4/3 customers ( already did, just take a look at the lack of anything going on at 4/3 ), and on the otherhand, the 4/3 and Micro 4/3 need and should be addressed as one, and Olympus had been unable to convince ( those 4/3 lens , even those new one that suppose to work with CDAF on the 4/3 body prove slow and unresponsive on the Micro 4/3 bodies ).

Whatever the case, I think its already a issue with 4/3 cause the market perceive that Olympus and Panasonic to be not involving in actively furthering 4/3 already ( and with good reason for that ). So people will hold back on making any commitment ( read business ) on that .. I certainly do, initially I am wanting a E620, and actually had put aside fund to get one, but with what Olympus did with the E600 launch and yet no real furthering of much needed lens for 4/3. I am not going to made that jump.

And even with Micro 4/3 it might prove a bit too hard for Olympus due to their show and no show of what E-P1 brings vs what Panasonic did with the same mount. Well I guess I would save up more and get the GH-1 instead.

--

• Franka -

Franka T.L. said:

Whatever the case, I think its already a issue with 4/3 cause the market perceive that Olympus and Panasonic to be not involving in actively furthering 4/3 already ( and with good reason for that ). So people will hold back on making any commitment ( read business ) on that .. I certainly do, initially I am wanting a E620, and actually had put aside fund to get one, but with what Olympus did with the E600 launch and yet no real furthering of much needed lens for 4/3. I am not going to made that jump.

Click to expand...

I have to say that this reads very much like a "glass half empty" view of things and that I do not share your view (nor do I think that "the market" shares your view). They have released 2 new 4/3 bodies (E-30, E-620) this year. They have warmed up some other ones (E-450) and will likely announce an updated version of the E-3 in the near future. They have stated that they will focus on lenses next year. Whatever gets put into the updated E-3 will likely trickle down to updates of the E-30 and E-620 next year as well.

I fail to see how you can read into this that they are not committed to the system? How many bodies do they need to release a year just so that you feel that they are committed to the system?

Timmi said:

m4/3 ... its not a replacement for the real 4/3 simple because of lens and lensmount design. ... telecentric design. This is possible with 4/3 but not with m4/3.

Click to expand...

The m4/3 lens mount does not take away any lens design possibilities that exist with 4/3. The proof is that any 4/3 lens can be used on any m4/3 body with an adaptor. So if desired any 4/3 lens optical design could be put in a m4/3 mount version. That would just about 20mm of extra empty tubing at the back of the lens body.

If m4/3 lenses are not as telecentric, it is because the goal so far is to make them small and light, like all the pancakes, and the above approach of adding 20mm at the back of a 4/3 lens does not achieve this. So instead of adapting 4/3 optical designs, different more compact designs with rear elements closer to the focal plane are being used, at least for the shorter focal lengths. These are mostly entry level designs so far, so maybe future higher level lenses will take a different approach.

Franka T.L. said:

On one hand, I am sure Olympus would want the Micro 4/3 to success, but that would require dedicating more effort there and this risk aliening the 4/3 customers (already did, just take a look at the lack of anything going on at 4/3 ) ...

Click to expand...

This year, Olympus has released the E-30, announced and released the E-620 and the quirky E-450, and on August 31, Olympus America put out a press release about the E-600 for release in November (apparently a release in selected countries only, at least initially.) So it looks like 2009 will see four 4/3 SLR models and about two m4/3 models released.

That does not look neglecting 4/3, but perhaps your regret is no new high grade lenses lately, and in particular no new primes.

rieslingly_chinon said:

I read the comment of Thom Hogan in Micro 4/3 forum. He mentioned that M4/3 possibly has more future than 4/3 system.

Click to expand...

Canon will release more and sell more point and shoots this year that APS-C cameras. APS-C still has a future.

Canon will sell more APS-C cameras than Full Frame cameras too. FF still has a future.

The big difference is that 4/3 and m4/3 use the same sensors reducing R&D and production costs.

Es soon as you use the adopter it is the Same as a 4/3 DSLR in Liveview.

m4/3 is about being evil, not using a telecentric design and using software correction in regards of lenses. This is defined and can be found within the m4/3 whitepapers.

Timi

--
iThink, therefore iMac

Timmi said:

m4/3 is about being evil, not using a telecentric design and using software correction in regards of lenses. This is defined and can be found within the m4/3 whitepapers.

Click to expand...

Can you give sources for those white papers? I have read nothing from Olympus or Panasonic that says m4/3 is about lenses not being telecentric! All I have read from the m4/3 makers about telecentricity and m4/3 lenses is an Olympus official in an interview saying that the goal of near telecentricity has NOT been abandoned with m4/3.

No dispute that many or all m4/3 lenses so far seem to use less telecentric designs, probably in order to reduce size and weight. My point is only that I have seen nothing about the m4/3 standard that rules out using more telecentric designs in future m4/3 lenses, perhpas in furuer higher level lenses to go with future more high end m4/3 bodies.

So again, if you can point to Olympus or Panasonic documents that say otherwise, please do.

P. S. A lens can have rear elements very close to the sensor and yet have a high rear nodal point, making it highly telecentric. Being near telecentric is not at all the same as having the rear lens elements far from the focal plane, or having the lens mount far from the focal plane.