Longevity and design philosophy of Micro 4/3rds and E-mount lens systems

Photonaughts and Foruministers,

What are your thoughts on where the Micro 4/3rds and E-mount lens systems will be in 10 years (I know this is fraught)?

The CSC/MILC/EVIL (whatever you want to call it) market is really fluid at the moment. The rate at which new cameras are being released is really quite stunning. Since it is such a nascent market, I am sure the technology will be quite different in five years. What manufactures can produce and what consumers will expect will no doubt change markedly. What they can't change is physics! Well designed lenses now will still be well designed lenses long after we have seen many incarnations of technology successes and failures.

I am a novice looking to build a compact system for fun (maybe addiction later). I am an old-school consumer. I like to spend a reasonable amount, on a well made product that last for many years, infrequently. Not succumbing to the compulsion of having to by the newest iSomething-X 2.0 every six months just because it now comes in red.

At the heart of a good camera system is lenses (some of which we can keep for life - at least in theory!). The disposable cameras we attach to the back of these can come and go. So again, what is the community's sense about where the Micro 4/3rds and E-mount lens systems will be in 10 years? Would I regret either choice in 2022? I would be interested to hear what you have to say. Particularly the old timers who can draw on long term experience with product life cycles.

Regards,
El Duderino

(Please don't use this question as an opportunity for a flame war. Or to push specifications, which I am reasonably well versed in, for either system. Or to talk about current lens line-ups. I am more interested in the philosophy, design choices and speculated longevity of these two lens systems)

and they can't change sensible ergonomics either.

Because of that, I suspect the courses have already been determined.

Pocketable compacts will continue to be threatened by phones, ipods etc. but will probably still be treading water.

Superzooms will continue superzooming because nothing zooms like a superzoom.

Quality P&S cameras will probably die out because M4/3 and the like already give you a lot more quality for little more money, and the gap will continue to close

DSLRs will die out because there simply isn't any point in them and the lenses will carry over to their mirrorless equivalents. The first to go will be the 4/3 DSLR, if it hasn't gone already, an evolutionary dead-end if there ever was one. Full frame EVILs, in the unlikely event that they exist, may not even bother to change the flange distance, just click in 'n' go, there being an inadequate market to justify a new mount.

M4/3 will continue to improve and has the advantage of being better able to exploit the size reduction that the mirrorless dersign offers. It is therefore likely to be predominant in the more serious arena, there being technically little point in going any larger, and ergonomically little point in going much smaller.

10c worth of bonmbast.......

El Duderino said:

The CSC/MILC/EVIL (whatever you want to call it) market is really fluid at the moment. The rate at which new cameras are being released is really quite stunning. Since it is such a nascent market, I am sure the technology will be quite different in five years.

Click to expand...

Strongly agree.

El Duderino said:

What they can't change is physics! Well designed lenses now will still be well designed lenses long after we have seen many incarnations of technology successes and failures.

Click to expand...

Even this seems open to question. Cameras with several small sensors might reduce the value of large lenses across the board.

El Duderino said:

I am an old-school consumer. I like to spend a reasonable amount, on a well made product that last for many years, infrequently.

Click to expand...

Digital cameras are not your comfort zone then. Cameras are becoming more software intensive at a rapid rate and so the pace of change is moving from fairly slow to very fast.

El Duderino said:

At the heart of a good camera system is lenses (some of which we can keep for life - at least in theory!). The disposable cameras we attach to the back of these can come and go.

Click to expand...

This is fine thinking for now, but don't expect it will hold for 10 years. It might, but nothing is certain. Even without radical change, such as multi-sensor, lenses are not the camera independent things they once were. New IS and autofocus designs amd software can create features that you want that are in the new lens but not in the old. A high quality "like new" MF lens that sold for an inflation adjusted $3000 might be bought for $50 today for this reason. Don't count on your "physics" to save anything.

El Duderino said:

So again, what is the community's sense about where the Micro 4/3rds and E-mount lens systems will be in 10 years? Would I regret either choice in 2022?

Click to expand...

I suggest you be happy with "I got a lot of good pictures with that, so I don't care that it's time to toss it." Then you are sure to be happy and not regret anything. If you think that the continued high value of the lenses is key to your being happy, you may not be.

El Duderino said:

I would be interested to hear what you have to say. Particularly the old timers who can draw on long term experience with product life cycles.

Click to expand...

Kodak had long experience. Long experience is worthless.

Nothing is stable except the desire for images. Images are information, which is manipulated by software and the computers inside cameras. Enjoy your great images and forget about longevity.

I would say buy what best meets your needs for 5 years and be prepared to junk it all in 8-12.

Nickoly ,

Thanks for the thoughts.

nickoly said:

and they can't change sensible ergonomics either.

Click to expand...

So true!

Before the smart phone 'revolution' there was a fairly half-hearted race to get mobile phones smaller and thinner. A friend of mine had this tiny phone with a tiny screen. I kid you not, I could press four keys at once on the number pad with my thumb! I didn't really see the point...

I hope the compact camera market eventually figures this out. For instance, my man-hands didn't fall naturally onto the NEX-7 when I handled one in a store (and I'm no giant). I am happy with any reasonable size (a little smaller than DSLR) just so long as it is light and is not a burden during a full day of walking.

nickoly said:

Pocketable compacts will continue to be threatened by phones, ipods etc. but will probably still be treading water.

Click to expand...

I agree. I couldn't say what the future of compacts will be but I know for sure the photography culture at social events I go to has changed significantly. I see far fewer compacts and much more people using their smart phones. These days they actually take reasonable photos.

(What I dont understand is that I went to an outdoors sculpture event recently and saw two people with DSLRs hanging from their necks taking photos of the art with their smart phones!!??)

nickoly said:

DSLRs will die out because there simply isn't any point in them and the lenses will carry over to their mirrorless equivalents.

Click to expand...

This is my hunch. Which is why I am interested in the current CSC offerings.

nickoly said:

M4/3 will continue to improve and has the advantage of being better able to exploit the size reduction that the mirrorless dersign offers. It is therefore likely to be predominant in the more serious arena, there being technically little point in going any larger, and ergonomically little point in going much smaller.

Click to expand...

I agree with you for users up to and including the enthusiast but not for professionals (people who actually make their living off photography). Isn't the bottom line that for any given pixel technology, larger is better? But then again these folks wont be using compact formats so it is a moot point.

nickoly said:

10c worth of bonmbast.......

Click to expand...

But i was glad to hear it ;-)

Thanks wb2trf

wb2trf said:

wb2trf said:

What they can't change is physics! Well designed lenses now will still be well designed lenses long after we have seen many incarnations of technology successes and failures.

Click to expand...

Even this seems open to question. Cameras with several small sensors might reduce the value of large lenses across the board.

Click to expand...

wb2trf said:

wb2trf said:

At the heart of a good camera system is lenses

Click to expand...

This is fine thinking for now, but don't expect it will hold for 10 years. It might, but nothing is certain.

Click to expand...

I agree to a point. Technology is always changing - both in optics and in sensing. It is easy to take advantage of this in the fickle consumer segment. By and large consumers aren't heavily invested in particular technologies.

On the other hand I think there is a considerable amount of inertia in the professional segment. It is difficult to break standards. For instance Nikon DSLRs have a lens interoperability spanning something like 40 years! They would need extremely good justification to break that heritage. Professionals would need extremely good justification for upgrading/dumping 10/100's of dollars worth of gear. Manufactures keep this in mind when they develop for the high end.

Look at the hoo-ha some (mere) consumers are making about the lack of diversity in the E-mount system and the so very new Fujifilm X-Pro1 lens range. It has taken three full years for M4/3s to look diverse(ish). Professionals would not tolerate that loss of productivity.

How technology will work its way down from the pros or up from the consumers over a large time span is anyone's guess.

wb2trf said:

wb2trf said:

I am an old-school consumer. I like to spend a reasonable amount, on a well made product that last for many years, infrequently.

Click to expand...

Digital cameras are not your comfort zone then. Cameras are becoming more software intensive at a rapid rate and so the pace of change is moving from fairly slow to very fast.

Click to expand...

Hehe. I am old-school! Not old!

I am in my 'prime', whatever that is, and more technologically competent than most. I just hate (hate, hate) the idea of built-in obsolescence. Contract phones are a good example of this. Do you really need to upgrade to an iPhone 4s just because it came out or your contract expired.... probably... because it will break by about then. Mean while Gorillas are being killed for bush meat by militias in the DRC illegally mining Coltan for tantalum production.

I am no saint. It is certainly hard to be completely virtuous but modern consumerism is a grotesque deviation from post world-war sensibilities.

wb2trf said:

wb2trf said:

So again, what is the community's sense about where the Micro 4/3rds and E-mount lens systems will be in 10 years? Would I regret either choice in 2022?

Click to expand...

I suggest you be happy with "I got a lot of good pictures with that, so I don't care that it's time to toss it." Then you are sure to be happy and not regret anything.

Nothing is stable except the desire for images. Images are information, which is manipulated by software and the computers inside cameras. Enjoy your great images and forget about longevity.

I would say buy what best meets your needs for 5 years and be prepared to junk it all in 8-12.

Click to expand...

True. I certainly don't pixel peep. Taking photos is a good motivation to go, do and capture interesting things right? Not sit in front of a computer obsessing over pixel noise or dynamic range. Better gear can certainly make it more fun and give you more flexibility

Ultimately if your composition or artistic flare is pedestrian with an average camera, your photos also be pedestrian with an excellent camera just higher quality. I am certainly no Ansel Adams and probably not a great photographer either! I just don't like it when people get fancy new gear and think photography ends there.

wb2trf said:

wb2trf said:

I would be interested to hear what you have to say. Particularly the old timers who can draw on long term experience with product life cycles.

Click to expand...

Kodak had long experience. Long experience is worthless.

Click to expand...

Innovation is everything. Experience is not worthless. It helps innovation and prevents mistakes.

Kodak had to transform from its specialty from photographic film to digital products. Nikon and Canon had to re-specialise as well but they were still large players in optics.

Middle management (dead wood) and cooking the books is worthless - just ask Olympus!

El Duderino said:

El Duderino said:

DSLRs will die out because there simply isn't any point in them and the lenses will carry over to their mirrorless equivalents.

Click to expand...

This is my hunch. Which is why I am interested in the current CSC offerings.

Click to expand...

As you pointed out in a later post, photographers are sometimes conservative and will tend to prefer what they already use including DSLRs. Many who like the new mirrorless systems do so for reasons (like size) that many others do not think are important so these other folks will not likely change. Also, some need the portrait and landscape grips along with the big battery for longer shooting. This will keep some camera bodies large. Larger bodies also seem to balance and handle better with larger lenses.

I think that there will be a wide range of cameras available for a wide variety of needs and desires for the indefinite future and the types of cameras may well increase. Just because a new type appears, it does not mean that some other type will necessarily disappears.
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/leons_pics/landscapes.htm

Cheers, Leon

Leon Wittwer said:

Leon Wittwer said:

Leon Wittwer said:

DSLRs will die out because there simply isn't any point in them and the lenses will carry over to their mirrorless equivalents.

Click to expand...

This is my hunch. Which is why I am interested in the current CSC offerings.

Click to expand...

As you pointed out in a later post, photographers are sometimes conservative and will tend to prefer what they already use including DSLRs. Many who like the new mirrorless systems do so for reasons (like size) that many others do not think are important so these other folks will not likely change.

Click to expand...

If only l had qualified that statement!

I wouldn't hold my breath for the death of DSLRs. I think that is a very distant prospect. Mirrors have already been forgotten in the compact camera segment. I think MILCs will overlap with the upper end of the compact camera market and the lower end of the DSLR market (in terms of the manufacture's target audience).

Somehow, I cant imaging the world hanging on the flapping mirrors forever. Particularly when solidstate electronic giants are becoming more influential in consumer photography. Although I think it is fair to say the professional side is a whole different ball game. There are many good reasons to keep optical paths in those systems.

As time goes on, I would not be surprised to see DSLRs sales decline. This time scale could be very large indeed but technology does not stand still. I suspect rate at which MILC are adopted in DSLR markets will be hinged on interoperability.

I certainly wouldn't place any money on mirrors being obsolete while I am alive!

Leon Wittwer said:

Also, some need the portrait and landscape grips

Click to expand...

A camera smaller than the average hand seems like an unergonomic start to me!

Leon Wittwer said:

along with the big battery for longer shooting

Click to expand...

This is one of the current problems with EVIL cameras. Apart from their satanic rituals their battery life is currently much worse than DSLRs. Keeping the sensor and processors active to feed the view finder is an expensive requirement.

Leon Wittwer said:

This will keep some camera bodies large. Larger bodies also seem to balance and handle better with larger lenses.

Click to expand...

I'll admit I have never used particularly heavy glass. I am happy to use a slightly unbalanced camera so long as the camera, mount and lens are all sturdy. I have always compensated for imbalance by supporting the lens with my non shooting hand.

Leon Wittwer said:

I think that there will be a wide range of cameras available for a wide variety of needs and desires for the indefinite future and the types of cameras may well increase. Just because a new type appears, it does not mean that some other type will necessarily disappears.

Click to expand...

Indeed! Wise words. Diversity makes life fun!

I suppose my only hunch is that following the digital trend of removing mechanical components, mirrors will become less relevant.

Speaking of future cameras, you should check out 'Light-field' technology if you haven't already heard of it. It is interesting stuff...

Having used M43 for a couple of years now, it's a delight to have that sort of capability without dragging a big camera bag with you.

Keep in mind, also, that while it may not be the most convenient, both M43 and NEX (and Samsung, Nikon 1, Pentax Q too) can use existing SLR film lenses, bags of those around at good prices. It looks a bit absurd, but I have used my old Nikkor 400 3.5, a big whale of a lens, on an EP1 body. And it works very well. Clumsy to hold? Not at all, that lens is pretty much tripod only anyway, due to the weight.

My suggestion is to grab a slightly out of date system: EP2, NEX3 maybe, that can be had for a substantial discount over the latest and greatest that really aren't much better. Play with it and see if you like it. Can't speak for NEX as I don't own one, but with M43, the current glass selection is extensive, and most of it is high quality.

The micro systems are here to stay. Since I got an EP1 two years ago, the dslr hasn't seen much use. The Pen isn't better, but it's about as good and a lot easier to keep with you.

El Duderino said:

I agree with you for users up to and including the enthusiast but not for professionals (people who actually make their living off photography). Isn't the bottom line that for any given pixel technology, larger is better? But then again these folks wont be using compact formats so it is a moot point.

Click to expand...

While it may be true that larger is better, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have have it.

Once upon a time, the industrial standard for audio recording was 1/4" tape, and then some idiot invented the compact cassette. No matter what happened, 1/4" reel to reel was always going to be superior, simply because it was twice the size and ran at twice the speed. Further, any technology that could be thrown at cassettes could be immediately applied to reel-to-ree, but reel-to-reel still died.

Similarly, up to the 1950s the weapon of choice amongst the press hounds was the 5x4 Speed Graphic. Then they moved to the Rolleiflex 2 1/4 sqaure. The Rollei was a truly stupid camera for the job but they were well made and delivered the goods. After a a few years, they were replaced by the Nikon F. Nothing could get near a 5x4 for image quality but the Nikon ruled the game for decades.

Digitasl sensors will get better all the time. The main things that will stop professionals from using compacts are essentially ergonomic. There is no need for a pro to have a camera so small. And there is no room for professional controls on them. Or the hotshoe, for that matter.

I have a pocket camera. It has every control except the ones I need, and they are too tedious to use anyway, so I usually leave it in "intelligent automatic". I imagine that is pretty typical.

TrapperJohn said:

It looks a bit absurd, but I have used my old Nikkor 400 3.5, a big whale of a lens, on an EP1 body. And it works very well. Clumsy to hold? Not at all, that lens is pretty much tripod only anyway, due to the weight.

Click to expand...

Ha! That would be quite a sight to behold. For wild life and birding?

TrapperJohn said:

My suggestion is to grab a slightly out of date system: EP2, NEX3 maybe, that can be had for a substantial discount over the latest and greatest that really aren't much better. Play with it and see if you like it.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps second hand? I suppose that gives you time to become accustomed to the system. It would probably even allow the technology to mature a little before a more substantial purchase.

TrapperJohn said:

The micro systems are here to stay. Since I got an EP1 two years ago, the dslr hasn't seen much use. The Pen isn't better, but it's about as good and a lot easier to keep with you.

Click to expand...

I suppose the definition of better is an ever moving goal post. Surely at some point there is better but there is also sufficient. For me, sufficient and convenient would wins over 'better'. That said, all but the cheapest cameras can actually produce pretty reasonable images, all considered.

We really are spoiled for choice!

Thanks TrapperJohn

nickoly said:

nickoly said:

I agree with you for users up to and including the enthusiast but not for professionals (people who actually make their living off photography). Isn't the bottom line that for any given pixel technology, larger is better? But then again these folks wont be using compact formats so it is a moot point.

Click to expand...

While it may be true that larger is better, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have have it.

Click to expand...

For sure. Most of us don't!

The informed and professionals know what they need . Consumers mostly want what they are told. How many people are out there who are just checking their emails on quad cores with lots of RAM?

nickoly said:

Once upon a time, the industrial standard for audio recording was 1/4" tape, and then some idiot invented the compact cassette.

Click to expand...

Hehe... Remember laser disks?.... Although they were actually pretty silly.

nickoly said:

Digitasl sensors will get better all the time. The main things that will stop professionals from using compacts are essentially ergonomic. There is no need for a pro to have a camera so small. And there is no room for professional controls on them. Or the hotshoe, for that matter.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. Even as a non-pro that matters to me. I'd say my lower limit would be a camera that is about as tall as my palm is wide - that way my whole hand could grip the camera body. Kudos to Fujifilm for deliberately making their X-pro 1 'large'. Thats the 'small' size I am looking for.

On that topic, I think a return to retro controls is an intelligent gamble, not a hipster statement. I think many people will find new enjoyment in a tactile/mechanical return to photography rather than flying by wire.

nickoly said:

I have a pocket camera. It has every control except the ones I need, and they are too tedious to use anyway, so I usually leave it in "intelligent automatic". I imagine that is pretty typical.

Click to expand...

I sure do, on my compact, for 99% of the time!

...with its 14-45 zoom. By 2022, they will have been long hailed as classics, game-changers, milestones, and benchmarks. Can I say more?

A lot has happened since, and we'll know in a week whether battle is really and truly joined between Oly and Panny for top the tree in the m43 league -- possibly the mirrorless league. Panasonic has been ahead of the field, in my view, for some time with the GH2, but I am expecting Oly to hit back, at last, with the OM-D.

There are remarks about limited shutter life compared with the highest level of pro cameras. I don't know. I certainly don't think it's very important. I would suspect we're going to see the death of the mechanical shutter very soon. Very, very soon. And that will be that for the shutter life argument. In any case, development n the technologies surrounding the shutters is happening at such a pace that shutter life is not an issue. A shutter that is going to last 100,000 actuations will be a generation behind the leading edge in respect of all the technology surrounding the shutter by the time it has done about half that number, even in most professional applications.

And the cameras are so cheap.

Enjoy the moment, but get that G1 + 14-45mm to use as a focus for looking back in 2022.

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

Looks like a nice camera!

Hen3ry said:

A lot has happened since, and we'll know in a week whether battle is really and truly joined between Oly and Panny for top the tree in the m43 league -- possibly the mirrorless league. Panasonic has been ahead of the field, in my view, for some time with the GH2, but I am expecting Oly to hit back, at last, with the OM-D.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I am quite looking forward to seeing full details on the Oly OM-D (E-M5). I believe the release date is on the 9th of this month. Only five more days!

Hen3ry said:

There are remarks about limited shutter life compared with the highest level of pro cameras. I don't know. I certainly don't think it's very important. I would suspect we're going to see the death of the mechanical shutter very soon. Very, very soon. And that will be that for the shutter life argument. In any case, development n the technologies surrounding the shutters is happening at such a pace that shutter life is not an issue. A shutter that is going to last 100,000 actuations will be a generation behind the leading edge in respect of all the technology surrounding the shutter by the time it has done about half that number, even in most professional applications.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Thats why I wondered where the community might think these sockets are going to go. I dont mind up-grading a body once in a while but it would disappointing if lens mounts in the CSC market keep changing. I am pretty sure M4/3rds is here to stay and I suppose it is unlikely E-mount will disappear.

Hen3ry said:

Enjoy the moment, but get that G1 + 14-45mm to use as a focus for looking back in 2022.

Click to expand...

I certainly am. There is so much choice at the moment - it is a little overwhelming!

Thanks Geoff!

El Duderino said:

Photonaughts and Foruministers,

What are your thoughts on where the Micro 4/3rds and E-mount lens systems will be in 10 years (I know this is fraught)?

The CSC/MILC/EVIL (whatever you want to call it) market is really fluid at the moment. The rate at which new cameras are being released is really quite stunning. Since it is such a nascent market, I am sure the technology will be quite different in five years. What manufactures can produce and what consumers will expect will no doubt change markedly. What they can't change is physics! Well designed lenses now will still be well designed lenses long after we have seen many incarnations of technology successes and failures.

I am a novice looking to build a compact system for fun (maybe addiction later). I am an old-school consumer. I like to spend a reasonable amount, on a well made product that last for many years, infrequently.

Click to expand...

Famous last words Sounds like me years ago. Just bought my latest in a long line of permanent cameras. Alcoholism starts the same way.

El Duderino said:

Not succumbing to the compulsion of having to by the newest iSomething-X 2.0 every six months just because it now comes in red.

Click to expand...

Five years seems to be the limit on what will last.

El Duderino said:

At the heart of a good camera system is lenses (some of which we can keep for life - at least in theory!). The disposable cameras we attach to the back of these can come and go. So again, what is the community's sense about where the Micro 4/3rds and E-mount lens systems will be in 10 years? Would I regret either choice in 2022? I would be interested to hear what you have to say. Particularly the old timers who can draw on long term experience with product life cycles.

Regards,
El Duderino

(Please don't use this question as an opportunity for a flame war. Or to push specifications, which I am reasonably well versed in, for either system. Or to talk about current lens line-ups. I am more interested in the philosophy, design choices and speculated longevity of these two lens systems)

Click to expand...

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Cheers Roger99

Roger99 said:

Roger99 said:

I am a novice looking to build a compact system for fun (maybe addiction later)

Click to expand...

Famous last words Sounds like me years ago. Just bought my latest in a long line of permanent cameras. Alcoholism starts the same way.

Click to expand...

Oh man.... I can feel it.... The bug has already bitten me....

Roger99 said:

Roger99 said:

Not succumbing to the compulsion of having to by the newest iSomething-X 2.0 every six months just because it now comes in red.

Click to expand...

Five years seems to be the limit on what will last.

Click to expand...

That depends! That is certainly true of digital technology. BUT! I have the opportunity to use two 50 year old Leica lenses. Neither of the lenses are considered obsolete despite being so old.

I can't afford an M9 so I am interested in a compatible CSC system instead. I started this thread because I wanted to choose a modern and hopefully long-lived lens mount system that I can continue to invest in.

Something old and something new

If you are old enough, you will remember when 35mm film was considered to be "miniature" and anything smaller than a 120/220 negative was not acceptable. No doubt the 120/220 negative was considered small when compared to the older 616 (Kodak) and the 4 X 5 view cameras. I could continue to go back in time to the glass plate era.... The point is that what is small now will eventually be considered the norm.

The thoiught of dragging a 2 1/4 twin lens Rollei is not appealing...I do not even want my old Hasselblad 500C back. Micro 4/3 is liberating due to its size and weight. You can carry a whole lot of it in place of one body and a couple of lenses in 35mm film size. Change is constant and it is good. We are just here for the ride. Hang on!

If you are thinking long range... then your best choice might be the Nikon 1 system, because it will doubtlessly get better over time, and Nikon will probably be making cameras and lenses for the rest of human history.

As an Olympus user myself, I have to admit that Olympus has a poor track record when it comes to supporting product lines over the long haul. They have a shameful history of "inventing the next great thing" and then losing interest a few years later, leaving their customers stranded.

The did this to Pen FT users, OM users, OM-AF users, and 4/3 users. So, I'm not so sure their commitment to their customers is as good as some other makers are. Add this to the fact that the entire imaging division may be up for sale due their financial problems, and the future is very uncertain.

Now here's the dilemma....

Currently, M4/3 is arguably the best and most complete MILC system available today. They have more body styles and a huge selection of AF lenses. The Olympus Jpeg engine is the best in the industry, and their dustbuster and IBIS are both excellent. Image quality is surprisingly good too. Even at higher ISO.

So despite my misgivings about Olympus.... I will probably buy an OM-D. Because the rate of improvement for digital cameras is really flattening out. Diminishing returns are setting in, and a camera you buy today could serve you well for ten years or more now.

Hence... the dilemma
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55

El Duderino said:

El Duderino said:

El Duderino said:

I am a novice looking to build a compact system for fun (maybe addiction later)

Click to expand...

Famous last words Sounds like me years ago. Just bought my latest in a long line of permanent cameras. Alcoholism starts the same way.

Click to expand...

Oh man.... I can feel it.... The bug has already bitten me....

El Duderino said:

El Duderino said:

Not succumbing to the compulsion of having to by the newest iSomething-X 2.0 every six months just because it now comes in red.

Click to expand...

Five years seems to be the limit on what will last.

Click to expand...

That depends! That is certainly true of digital technology. BUT! I have the opportunity to use two 50 year old Leica lenses. Neither of the lenses are considered obsolete despite being so old.

Click to expand...

Well actually that's one heck of an incentive. I know some will argue otherwise (I guarantee it ) but I have always had a fondness for Leica glass from that time.

El Duderino said:

I can't afford an M9 so I am interested in a compatible CSC system instead. I started this thread because I wanted to choose a modern and hopefully long-lived lens mount system that I can continue to invest in.

Click to expand...

It's all a bit of a gamble but if you must get everything (lenses and all) going full frame, that is 35mm sized sensor might be a good leaning. It's just a hunch to me I admit but the APS-C sized sensors could wind up quaint history. I don't know how CSC systems stand on this front but if your going to use for a long time it may not be an issue to you anyway.

One thing you should do though is go to a retailer and try your lenses on a digital body and shoot as many as you can in the shop and out of it, if they will let you, with your own card and then spend some time at home and with other cam geeks if you can, scrutinizing every aspect of the shots for clarity, distortion, focus colour purity and things along those lines. You may find that that wonderful glass is wonderful no longer in digital. Better safe than sorry. Realize as well that sensors smaller than the old standard 35mm frame will make your lenses lean toward the telephoto range to varying degrees depending on the sensor size. It's usually stated as a ratio of 1.6 to 1 or 1.5 to one etc. so at 1.6 a 50mm lens will become an 80mm for example or a wide 35mm would become a more standard 56mm.

Basically I would say test as much as you can before you buy anything.
Good luck.

El Duderino said:

Something old and something new

Click to expand...

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

I'd drink to all that. Nikon has been nice and stable in it's compatibility priorities for a very long time now and there is no reason why they should change any time soon.

But Marty, being an Oly man what's your take on the scandal in the company at the moment and how do you think that will effect product over the next few years?

Hate to get an Oly only to find the company has crashed the next week but then I haven't followed the drama.

Marty4650 said:

If you are thinking long range... then your best choice might be the Nikon 1 system, because it will doubtlessly get better over time, and Nikon will probably be making cameras and lenses for the rest of human history.

As an Olympus user myself, I have to admit that Olympus has a poor track record when it comes to supporting product lines over the long haul. They have a shameful history of "inventing the next great thing" and then losing interest a few years later, leaving their customers stranded.

The did this to Pen FT users, OM users, OM-AF users, and 4/3 users. So, I'm not so sure their commitment to their customers is as good as some other makers are. Add this to the fact that the entire imaging division may be up for sale due their financial problems, and the future is very uncertain.

Now here's the dilemma....

Currently, M4/3 is arguably the best and most complete MILC system available today. They have more body styles and a huge selection of AF lenses. The Olympus Jpeg engine is the best in the industry, and their dustbuster and IBIS are both excellent. Image quality is surprisingly good too. Even at higher ISO.

So despite my misgivings about Olympus.... I will probably buy an OM-D. Because the rate of improvement for digital cameras is really flattening out. Diminishing returns are setting in, and a camera you buy today could serve you well for ten years or more now.

Hence... the dilemma
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55

Click to expand...

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

I think there is absolutely no question that Olympus has been mismanaged financially. However, the camera designers and engineers had nothing to do with this, and they keep cranking out some very nice gear. If the OM-D is anything like the rumors are saying, I'd say they have a hit on their hands.

Olympus' problem is that they fudged the books so much (much like Enron did) to hide investment loses, that they are in a very weak financial position today. And they will likely be broken up and sold off in parts, to recoup some value for investors.

Their digital imaging division is a very small part of the company. Perhaps 15% of revenue, and 0% of profits.... but it does have value due to the equity of the trademark and the patents they hold. Hopefully, someone interested in running a camera business will acquire it, and let it move forward. I just cannot imagine the brand dying. Someone will want this.

Their crown jewel is their medical instruments division, which has a 70% share of the endoscope market, and also sells high end microscopes. This is a very valuable asset that will go to the highest bidder. No one will get it cheaply, because it is very profitable.

Everything else Olympus owns is pure garbage. The face cream company... the tupperware company... the waste management company.... all bad investments. This just shows you how inept their board of directors was. Not only were these bad investment choices, but they had nothing to do with their other core products, or their expertise in anything.

But I still say I would buy an OM-D, and the reason I say this is because digital imaging has reached the point where there are no more radical improvement to be made. Everything will be incremental small improvements, many of which will have nothing to do with taking photos. Sort of like having audio speakers that can reproduce sounds only your dog can hear.

If you see a camera you like today, then buy it... because it might serve your needs for the next ten years or longer. The days are over where each new model is a quantum leap better than the last one. Today, you just get new cool features... like touch screens, or some more scene modes. A better LCD screen won't take better photos.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55