Four Thirds - My Say

Louis_Dobson · Jul 15, 2010

Since everyone else has had theirs.

There is no medium term future for mass market "crop sensor" OVF dSLRs.

EVILs already offer focusing that is as fast as entry level dSLRs and soon it will be as good as medium level ones. The viewfinders are just fine.

My G1 (already an 18 month old model) does everything my E330 did four years ago, while being far lighter. They are catching up...

The advantages of four thirds are that the cameras are more portable than large sensor cameras and the lenses are better (for the same weight or cost) because they have to cover less sensor. MFT cameras have the same advantages, but are MUCH more portable again.

Only people with specialist needs will demand an OVF camera, and they tend to be the sort of people who buy 35mmFF.

If Oly want to be in the OVF market they need to go back and build a 35mmFF range. I can't see that being economic. So they had better start integrating their existing, expensively developed range of lenses with MFT.

Within a few years the mainstream interchangeable lens cameras will be EVILs and 35mmFFs. OVF APS-C and FT cameras will have gone.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

decmate · Jul 15, 2010

Louis_Dobson said:
Within a few years the mainstream interchangeable lens cameras will be EVILs and 35mmFFs. OVF APS-C and FT cameras will have gone.

Hi Louis,

I am one of the people who will be continuing to use a conventional DSLR for many years, and am waiting for Olympus to release the E-5. But, if you are right, should I abandon Olympus now and move to CaNikon FF?

Regards,

John
--
Who is that in the hyperfocal distance?

msusic · Jul 15, 2010

Louis_Dobson said:
Since everyone else has had theirs.

There is no medium term future for mass market "crop sensor" OVF dSLRs.

43rds is NOT cropped sensor...

Louis_Dobson said:
EVILs already offer focusing that is as fast as entry level dSLRs and soon it will be as good as medium level ones. The viewfinders are just fine.

It's not.

It might be almost as good as cheap kit lens entry level models in focusing from infinity and back, but it's nowhere as fast as ultrasonic motors and more advanced AF sensors.

Not to mention, it's extremely slow for short distances (when the focus is almost there, but not quite because it needs to go through the range) compared to PDAF and virtually useless for tracking.

Louis_Dobson said:
The advantages of four thirds are that the cameras are more portable than large sensor cameras and the lenses are better (for the same weight or cost) because they have to cover less sensor. MFT cameras have the same advantages, but are MUCH more portable again.

It's a common misconception.
Yes, that's ONE of the advantages, but there are others.

better optical performance (less distortion and more even coverage due to sensor being smaller)
more effective IBIS
less prone to dust
more precise/less clunky design for reduced vibration (shutter, mirror box).
more and more quality tele reach for less money than bigger formats

Louis_Dobson said:
Only people with specialist needs will demand an OVF camera, and they tend to be the sort of people who buy 35mmFF.

Why? Not everyone needs/wants 2500$ camera
I think E-3 type of camera has a good amount of potential customers out there.

For around 1500$ you get professionally built camera which dwarfs cheaper FF models in quality and goes well with better ZD line of lenses.

Louis_Dobson said:
If Oly want to be in the OVF market they need to go back and build a 35mmFF range. I can't see that being economic. So they had better start integrating their existing, expensively developed range of lenses with MFT.

It's still possible to have EVF and phase detect focus.
I don't know why some of you think it's not the case.

EVF is probably coming to 43rds soon because VF is one of the 43rds' weakest links due to small mirror, but having a EVF you could have VF the size of the largest optical finders with the added benefit of focus assist, live histogram and much more.

Louis_Dobson said:
Within a few years the mainstream interchangeable lens cameras will be EVILs and 35mmFFs. OVF APS-C and FT cameras will have gone.

We'll see...

marf · Jul 15, 2010

Louis_Dobson said:
Since everyone else has had theirs.

There is no medium term future for mass market "crop sensor" OVF dSLRs.

I dont like the term "crop", because at fourthirds nothing is cropped and it sounds like "crap".

Louis_Dobson said:
If Oly want to be in the OVF market they need to go back and build a 35mmFF range. I can't see that being economic.

In addition to what I said above, I dont agree - remember the economic crisis is not over and not everyone will have the money to spend 10 times the price for a camera body, compared to that a camera body costed during the film age.
And regarding the professionals

"normal" professionals have to look for profitability, and that is money input minus money output minus time spent servicing the gear ( antidust etc ) minus time spent for postprocessing ( bad/good jpg colors make a difference here ) , and that while photography prices fall

Louis_Dobson said:
So they had better start integrating their existing, expensively developed range of lenses with MFT.

I agree this is a good idea

Louis_Dobson said:
EVILs already offer focusing that is as fast as entry level dSLRs and soon it will be as good as medium level ones. The viewfinders are just fine.

yes. But perhaps a OVF for the longer focal length lenses would be not bad. Perhaps built into the lenses (!) or adapter

Louis_Dobson said:
My G1 (already an 18 month old model) does everything my E330 did four years ago, while being far lighter. They are catching up...

The advantages of four thirds are that the cameras are more portable than large sensor cameras

I do professional wedding shoots and dont want to have small cameras there; the bigger the better.

But a "small version for backup and to take everywhere, also for the mass market" is a plus.
So big AND small cameras are needed within one system

Louis_Dobson said:
and the lenses are better (for the same weight or cost) because they have to cover less sensor. MFT cameras have the same advantages, but are MUCH more portable again.

Only people with specialist needs will demand an OVF camera, and they tend to be the sort of people who buy 35mmFF.

as said, perhaps a OVF for the longer focal length lenses would be not bad. Perhaps built into the lenses (!) or adapter

Martin

Louis_Dobson · Jul 15, 2010

msusic said:
Louis_Dobson said:

Since everyone else has had theirs.

There is no medium term future for mass market "crop sensor" OVF dSLRs.

Click to expand...

43rds is NOT cropped sensor...

Semantics. We all know what I mean.

msusic said:
msusic said:

EVILs already offer focusing that is as fast as entry level dSLRs and soon it will be as good as medium level ones. The viewfinders are just fine.

Click to expand...

It's not.

It might be almost as good as cheap kit lens entry level models in focusing from infinity and back, but it's nowhere as fast as ultrasonic motors and more advanced AF sensors.

Not to mention, it's extremely slow for short distances (when the focus is almost there, but not quite because it needs to go through the range) compared to PDAF and virtually useless for tracking.

I have been very pleasantly surprised. Sure, the E3 and D3 beat it by miles, but it seems just as good as entry level cameras. Can it be made as good as mid level ones? I think so. You can throw computing power at it quite easily and, in the medium term, cheaply.

msusic said:
msusic said:

The advantages of four thirds are that the cameras are more portable than large sensor cameras and the lenses are better (for the same weight or cost) because they have to cover less sensor. MFT cameras have the same advantages, but are MUCH more portable again.

Click to expand...

It's a common misconception.
Yes, that's ONE of the advantages, but there are others.

better optical performance (less distortion and more even coverage due to sensor being smaller)

more effective IBIS

less prone to dust

more precise/less clunky design for reduced vibration (shutter, mirror box).

more and more quality tele reach for less money than bigger formats

I feel these are pretty marginal, except the last, which is a point I should have put in myself, apologies.

Shooting with with FT and FF, the difference that comes up again and again is that FF really is a pig to cart about. But despite that FT has never been a huge seller: I honestly think most people don't realise how much heavy kit will restrict their photography, and those who DO will be looking at MFT and smacking their lips!

msusic said:
msusic said:

Only people with specialist needs will demand an OVF camera, and they tend to be the sort of people who buy 35mmFF.

Click to expand...

Why? Not everyone needs/wants 2500$ camera
I think E-3 type of camera has a good amount of potential customers out there.

For around 1500$ you get professionally built camera which dwarfs cheaper FF models in quality and goes well with better ZD line of lenses.

The price is coming down. Again, as above, probably FT deserved to sell much better than it did - it has always been massively under rated. However the reality is that it has NOT sold that well, and is now being attacked from both ends, by FF cameras, which removes the people who bought smaller sensors for financial reasons, and by MFT, which removes the people who (wisely) wanted a lighter system. You end up with a hard core who appreciate the advantage(s) of a smaller sensor but still need high end focusing and an EVF. That's not a big market.

msusic said:
msusic said:

If Oly want to be in the OVF market they need to go back and build a 35mmFF range. I can't see that being economic. So they had better start integrating their existing, expensively developed range of lenses with MFT.

Click to expand...

It's still possible to have EVF and phase detect focus.
I don't know why some of you think it's not the case.

EVF is probably coming to 43rds soon because VF is one of the 43rds' weakest links due to small mirror, but having a EVF you could have VF the size of the largest optical finders with the added benefit of focus assist, live histogram and much more.

Once you have an EVF then you have what I'm talking about - an EVIL. And you are reaching the same conclusion as me - if Oly want to keep selling their expensively developed FT lenses they need to fine some way to bring FT and MFT together.

msusic said:
msusic said:

Within a few years the mainstream interchangeable lens cameras will be EVILs and 35mmFFs. OVF APS-C and FT cameras will have gone.

Click to expand...

We'll see...

Indeed!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Louis_Dobson · Jul 15, 2010

Depends if you mind carrying around a brick! I'd wait and see what Oly manage to come up with. I'm hoping they can find a way to bring FT and MFT together.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Josefin · Jul 15, 2010

marf said:
I dont like the term "crop", because at fourthirds nothing is cropped and it sounds like "crap".

No more than "top" sounds like "tap". But you can call it 35 mm with built in two stop tele converter if you like.

Fact is that DSLR sensors smaller than 36x24 mm are commonly referred to as being cropped. That's just how it is. And in many contexts the term actually makes a lot of sense.

--
Rikke

Louis_Dobson · Jul 15, 2010

This is a kit discussion forum, so we discuss kit.

But if one doesn't mind lugging a huge camera to weddings, then I can't see why the E3 is better than the D3. Body plus 7-14 14-35 35-70 costs about the same as the Nikon equivalent.

By coincidence I shot a wedding recently (I hate veent shooting, and got scammed into it, grrrr!), and I chose to take the D3. This one with 105 f2.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Rob MacLennan · Jul 15, 2010

Louis, a u4/3 camera will have to come a very long way, in focusing speed, before it will do what I need. Even my old E-500 had far faster focusing than the u4/3 cameras that I've tried. I could manage to do this purely on inherent focus speed with it...

But would have to pre-focus using a u4/3 camera. I gave up on that long ago, when I moved on from point-&-shoots. I wouldn't have a hope in hell of capturing something like this...

... with something like my E-P2. Not in a month of Sundays.

Additionally, the crop factor gives me cheap pseudo-zoom. Sure, I could buy a high MPix full-frame camera and crop but when I'm shooting 2500 frames in a weekend, I would rather not have to spend that much time per-image, in addition to culling.

Louis_Dobson said:
Since everyone else has had theirs.

There is no medium term future for mass market "crop sensor" OVF dSLRs.

EVILs already offer focusing that is as fast as entry level dSLRs and soon it will be as good as medium level ones. The viewfinders are just fine.

My G1 (already an 18 month old model) does everything my E330 did four years ago, while being far lighter. They are catching up...

The advantages of four thirds are that the cameras are more portable than large sensor cameras and the lenses are better (for the same weight or cost) because they have to cover less sensor. MFT cameras have the same advantages, but are MUCH more portable again.

Only people with specialist needs will demand an OVF camera, and they tend to be the sort of people who buy 35mmFF.

If Oly want to be in the OVF market they need to go back and build a 35mmFF range. I can't see that being economic. So they had better start integrating their existing, expensively developed range of lenses with MFT.

Within a few years the mainstream interchangeable lens cameras will be EVILs and 35mmFFs. OVF APS-C and FT cameras will have gone.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

--
http://www.morallyambiguous.net/

D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3 + E-30 + E-P2

Louis_Dobson · Jul 15, 2010

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

nick_webster · Jul 15, 2010

I tend to agree with your crystal ball gazing with regards to the low end market, what seems less clear cut is what is going to happen with the higher end APS cameras.

I think there will still be a market for these even in the medium term - still lighter and more portable than Full Fat systems, but better performance than EVILs in terms of AF tracking, viewfinder blackout etc.

Nick

Louis_Dobson · Jul 15, 2010

but my G1 seems to focus a LOT faster than my E500 ever did. It also passes my standard test of a dog running towards me on C-AF. I've not tried the EP2 and whatever lens you have.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

olyflyer · Jul 15, 2010

For the coming ten years my prediction is that the EVF technology won't be able to replace OVF on equal level. As good EVF technology will become cheaper, I believe that you are right in predicting that soon the entry level DSLRs will be gone, at least for Olympus, but I see no great advantages to make APS-C cameras with EVFs, at least not in the Nikon family. The reason for this is that then Nikon has to create a third line of lens range, EVF-DX, making it very expensive to do. The Nikon philosophy is different from Olympus since Nikon uses the F-mount and the use of all Nikon lenses are usable on any Nikon body today. With limitations on some of the bodies, but still... This demands a certain, fixed distance from the sensor and if you would use adapters it would make the EVF cameras as large as existing APS-C bodies, so what would be the point? This is in fact what is happening with Olympus as well, because this problem is indeed a problem and has caused the stalling in Olympus DSLR bodies and lenses development.

Anyway, the only thing I can believe is going to happen is that the entry level cameras will be gone soon, perhaps also in the APS-C world, but as I already said about two years ago, definitely in the Olympus world. I can not see Olympus pushing as many DSLR bodies as they did the last two years and in my opinion the DSLR users should be happy if there will be an E-4 and E-40 type of camera left within the next coming 2-3 years.

However...

Olympus needs to seriously think about the technology they use. The focus of current Oly MFT is ridiculously slow, bordering useless (for the price you pay), the lack of possibility of having EVF and external flash at the same time is pathetic, so they definitely have to do better in the future because the PEN is nothing but a huge and heavy P&S as it is, worse than the G10/11 seen from the usability point of view, just that it is almost (or maybe more than) twice as expensive. Not to mention that ancient LCD panel they have, which in my opinion should be on the level of the D300 panel since the LCD is indeed the main view finder of that camera. In other words, I don't see the current Olympus MFT is ever going to replace any of the DSLR range, not even with improved focus speed and better LCD. If they are not going to redesign the body it will remain to be nothing else than a huge P&S.

olyflyer · Jul 15, 2010

Louis_Dobson said:
but my G1 seems to focus a LOT faster than my E500 ever did. It also passes my standard test of a dog running towards me on C-AF.

Maybe that depends on the lens... I found the E-500 to be quite fast with the 14-54 but fairly slow with the 14-54 and the 40-150.

Louis_Dobson said:
I've not tried the EP2 and whatever lens you have.

It's slow. G2 is better. If I'd consider a mirror less camera it would be the G2 today.

Louis_Dobson · Jul 15, 2010

I think Panasonic made a sensible low weight but low speed dSLR replacement in the G1. When it had no lenses it was a bit dull, but the lenses are now coming...

Initially however people couldn't see the point, and Oly stole a march with the EP1, a giant P&S, which took the market by storm, although I'd not touch one with a twenty foot disinfected bargepole, while wearing rubber gloves.

There seem to be two distinct trends now, the retro chic pseudo rangefinder things, which are of no great use to me but seem to be selling very well to upgrading P&sers as well as enthusiasts who already have a big camera, and the mini dSLRs like the G1 and G2.

I LOVE my G1. It is at least as good as an entry level dSLR and much smaller, especially with the Panny 7-14 on it.

I don't see why, once there are a few SG lenses, you can't make a G1 format camera that performs as well as a mid range dSLR. And I find it hard to believe that

anyone weight sensitive would buy anything else. The non weight sensitive in the meantime will be buying ever cheaper 35mmFFs

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Rob MacLennan · Jul 15, 2010

40-150 Mk-I and Bigma on the E-500. 40-150 Mk-II, 14-42 u4/3, and 14-54 Mk-II on the E-P2. I find that the E-P2 isn't even fast enough to shoot a running child.

A dog, running towards you, will never push the AF the way that a madly accelerating motorcycle will, as it exits a corner. Sensor-based AF just isn't there yet.

Louis_Dobson said:
but my G1 seems to focus a LOT faster than my E500 ever did. It also passes my standard test of a dog running towards me on C-AF. I've not tried the EP2 and whatever lens you have.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

--
http://www.morallyambiguous.net/

D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3 + E-30 + E-P2

Rob MacLennan · Jul 15, 2010

The 40-150 Mk-I certainly wasn't fast enough focusing to do head-on bike shots, but it would manage 3/4 sides.

olyflyer said:
Louis_Dobson said:

but my G1 seems to focus a LOT faster than my E500 ever did. It also passes my standard test of a dog running towards me on C-AF.

Click to expand...

Maybe that depends on the lens... I found the E-500 to be quite fast with the 14-54 but fairly slow with the 14-54 and the 40-150.

olyflyer said:

I've not tried the EP2 and whatever lens you have.

Click to expand...

It's slow. G2 is better. If I'd consider a mirror less camera it would be the G2 today.

--
http://www.morallyambiguous.net/

D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3 + E-30 + E-P2

Doug Brown · Jul 15, 2010

In a few years a lot of the folks shooting stills for media use (and even a lot of commercial photographers doing things like product and advertising) will be doing video clips for LCD display (iPad etc.) That is a much easier process with an EVF.

Nikon caters to the profession but they are really lagging in video implementation.

I could see Olympus going EVF in their 4/3's pro model, even if it isn't quite ready for prime time shooting sports yet, simply because of the video factor. A tough pro stills camera with the integrated video functionality of a camcorder would really differentiate them right now in the pro market.

With a large EVF/LCD combo making manual focusing a possibility, the slower AF of existing 4/3's lenses wouldn't be such a handicap as a lot of the time you'd be shooting manual focus with such a camera.

And yes, they will find a way to integrate the two lines. Right now there is an artifical divide between them, but in the future they will be completely interchangeable.

Douglas Brown

rovingtim · Jul 15, 2010

The only thing I would add is that when it turned out the e-system would not be having lenses 1/4 the size of comparable 35mm lenses per their promises, Oly lost a great deal of interest.

Also, I think eveyone is underestimating the advances Oly has made on their AF in Micro4/3rds.

Also, as soon as the light drops I found the G1 to have better (ie faster and more accurate) focus than the E620.

papillon_65 · Jul 15, 2010

We've had the revolution now we're in a period of evolution. The evf's can be good enough, the vf-2 has proved that, when the af speeds improve it's nearly there with m4/3's. We just need some cheaper, faster lenses. This will come eventually.

As for the IQ, there is no way any P&S can compete with the PL-1 sensor, once you go above ISO 400 it's game over. the biggest gripe in 4/3's world is the cost of the newer lenses. Oly always mark up their new products but the prices always drop to a reasonable level in time. It's open to debate whether entry and mid level DSLR's will disappear, probably not altogether, not for a good while anyway.

In the meantime, unless you need fast af there are not a lot of reasons to stick with a DSLR, not in my experience anyway. I can still take a pretty comprehensive set of lenses around with me in a smaller camera bag and get excellent IQ covering uwa to medium telephoto and the only hit I'm taking is af speed, which isn't a biggie for me.

--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Four Thirds - My Say

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts